Oral
Answers to
Questions

CABINET OFFICE AND THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

Voter Registration: Young People

Jim Cunningham: What steps the Government are taking to increase the number of young people registered to vote.

Chris Skidmore: The Government are building a democracy that works for everyone, including young people. Online registration has made it easier and faster to register to vote, and since its introduction a record 4.2 million applications to register have been made by people aged 16 to 24.

Jim Cunningham: That was a very interesting answer. How can the Government be building a democracy when they have excluded nearly 2 million people who were allowed to vote in the referendum, and are going ahead with boundary reviews that will particularly affect young people in universities?

Chris Skidmore: We are absolutely committed to taking account of the issues that matter to young people. As for the boundary changes, it is right for us to ensure that every seat is of equal value. It cannot be right for some constituencies to contain 95,000 people and others 38,000. We will ensure that every vote is equal, and that includes young people.

Simon Hoare: As my hon. Friend will know, next week the Youth Parliament will sit in this place. Does he agree that many 16, 17 and 18-year-olds are taking a growing interest in public affairs and what we do in the House—that is certainly what I find when I visit schools in my constituency—and that such initiatives will help youth registration?

Chris Skidmore: It would be remiss of me not to note that the Youth Parliament will be sitting in this very Chamber on 11 November under your command, Mr Speaker. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing young people discuss the issues that matter to them. When it comes to “every vote matters”, we should  bear in mind that young people are interested in issues such as mental health and a curriculum that works for everyone, and those are the issues that are being debated in the Chamber. We look forward to working with young people to ensure that their voice is heard.

John Bercow: I hope that the Youth Parliament will be sitting under my encouraging chairmanship rather than under my command, but I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the sentiment that he has expressed.

Chris Elmore: The Minister will be aware that 16-year-olds in Scotland are able to vote for Members of the Scottish Parliament and for councillors, and that the plans for devolution under the Wales Bill might mean that 16-year-olds are allowed to vote for Welsh Assembly Members and councillors. Will he now give proper consideration to a full and positive report about the need to ensure that 16-year-olds can vote for Members of the House of Commons so that there can be full democracy for people aged 16 and over?

Chris Skidmore: We discussed this issue at the previous session of Cabinet Office questions. We will not be lowering the parliamentary voting age, because since the general election Parliament has debated the proposal a number of times and repeatedly voted against it. It is important to recognise that most democracies consider that 18 is the right age to enfranchise young people. A person must be at least 18 to serve on a jury for similar reasons.

Ranil Jayawardena: My hon. Friend referred to the need to ensure that every vote is equal. In the light of the number of spoilt ballot papers in elections for police and crime commissioners, will he think again about reintroducing the first-past-the-post system for elections of that kind in England?

Chris Skidmore: My hon. Friend is right that we need a clear and secure democracy if we are to continue to have confidence in our system. In the elections for police and crime commissioners, about 8 million people voted and there were more than 300,000 spoilt ballot papers. For the EU referendum, in which 35 million people voted, there were just 25,000 spoilt ballot papers. There is clearly an issue that the Government will want to look into.

Alex Salmond: Has it occurred to the Minister that if the Government were not so aggressively making it difficult for millions of people to be included in the register, and if the previous Prime Minister had not so arrogantly dismissed the case for enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds, the referendum result would have been different, and he would still be Prime Minister?

Chris Skidmore: It is important to recognise that in the referendum a record number of people voted on one side—17.4 million voted for the UK to leave the European Union—and that a record 46.5 million people were registered to vote, of whom 3 million registered using the individual electoral registration system online. That shows that people have full confidence in the future of our new system.

Cat Smith: Does the Minister agree that more young people might register to vote if they thought that it would make a positive difference to their lives, and that decisions such as trebling tuition fees, abolishing the education maintenance allowance and restricting young people’s housing benefit only act as a disincentive for them to become involved in politics?

Chris Skidmore: The hon. Lady is right, but there is a problem with young people’s registration: we allow 16-year-olds to register to vote, but only 37% of them choose to do so. As I said earlier, we need to take account of the issues that matter to young people. Such issues will be debated by the Youth Parliament next Friday, but none of those to which the hon. Lady refers are on the agenda.

Voting Rights: Overseas UK Citizens

Henry Bellingham: How he plans to give UK citizens living overseas the right to vote for life.

Glyn Davies: What progress he has made on giving UK citizens living overseas the right to vote for life.

Chris Skidmore: On 7 October the Government published a policy statement setting out our detailed proposals for votes for life, and explaining how we plan to meet our manifesto commitment to scrap the 15-year time limit for overseas voting. We intend the system to be in place before the next scheduled UK parliamentary general election.

Henry Bellingham: I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply, but may I return to the subject of cutting the cost of politics? Can he tell us when the Government will be able to equalise the size of constituencies?

Chris Skidmore: We are determined that by the time of the 2020 general election, the historic principle of equal seats will be in place. If we do not introduce that reform, we will be fighting our seats on the basis of data that go back to the year 2000, meaning that they are 20 years out of date. That is completely unacceptable, which is why we must press ahead with boundary reform.

Glyn Davies: Does my hon. Friend also agree that by including British citizens living abroad who have previously been resident to vote, as well as those who have previously been registered, the Government are enabling more people to participate in our politics and delivering a democracy that truly works for everyone?

Chris Skidmore: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Our proposal to scrap the requirement that an overseas elector must have been previously registered to vote when they were resident in the UK will mean that even more Brits abroad can vote if they so choose.

Tom Brake: How will the Minister ensure that UK citizens living overseas in the EU have not only the right to vote, but the right to remain in EU countries?

Chris Skidmore: We will ensure that we have a democracy that works for everyone, which is why we are determined to ensure that Britons living abroad will, regardless of which country they live in, be able to participate in our democracy, especially those who have lived abroad for more than 15 years such as Harry Shindler, a Labour voter who lives in Italy and fought in world war two, but is unable to vote at the moment. It is right that we give these people who have served their country the right  to vote.

Margaret Ritchie: Alongside extending suffrage for UK citizens living abroad, what consideration has the Cabinet Office given to extending suffrage in general elections to all EU and non-Commonwealth immigrants permanently living in Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Chris Skidmore: In terms of local government suffrage, EU citizens can already vote. For parliamentary suffrage, we are extending the franchise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) rightly says, to an extra 3.7 million Brits abroad. When it comes to the question of those living in this country, obviously that is subject to future negotiations.

Ian Lavery: At a time when the Government are failing in any serious way to address the democratic deficit in the UK, they are, as has been mentioned, pursuing plans to remove the 15-year time limit for overseas voters and to hand a vote for life to an estimated 1 million expats. Will the Minister explain how that might affect Electoral Commission guidelines on “permissible donors”, and will he assure the House that under no circumstances will the proposed changes allow unlimited political financial donations from non-UK taxpayers abroad to be funnelled into the coffers of any UK political party?

Chris Skidmore: First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place? It is great to see him across the Dispatch Box.
On the issue of overseas electors and ensuring those living abroad for more than 15 years have a vote for life, the principle is clear: we must ensure those who were born in this country, who have often paid tax in this country and have moved abroad are given a right to participate in our democracy. These include people such as Harry Shindler, a Labour voter who fought in world war two. We want to ensure that these people who have given something to our country are allowed to participate in our democracy.

House of Lords: Membership

Chris Law: If he will bring forward proposals to limit the size of the membership of the House of Lords.

Ian Blackford: If he will bring forward proposals to limit the size of the membership of the House of Lords.

Chris Skidmore: The Government agree that the House of Lords cannot grow indefinitely. However, comprehensive reform is not a priority for this Parliament, given the growing  number of pressing priorities elsewhere. Nevertheless, when there are measures that can command consensus, we would welcome working with peers to look at taking them forward.

Chris Law: A simpler answer would have been, “No, we will kick that into the long grass.”
It is clear that the House of Lords needs radical reform. In fact, we should listen to the new Lord Speaker, who said only last week:
“I don’t think we can justify a situation where you have over 800 peers at the same time as you’re bringing down the Commons to 600 MPs”.
Does the Minister agree?

Chris Skidmore: This was raised at an important debate on 26 October, when the House agreed with the Government that this is not a priority. The Government agree that House of Lords reform is not one of the priorities of the British people: a recent YouGov study showed that just 18% of the public think House of Lords reform is a priority. I am amazed that the Scottish National party has chosen this issue to campaign about. Why not campaign on education or on health—why not campaign on the issues that matter to the Scottish people?

Ian Blackford: What an outrage to democracy that answer from the Minister was. We have the ridiculous situation that there are more unelected Members of the House of Lords than MPs living in the highlands of Scotland, yet this Government want to cut democratic participation. We will be left with three Members of Parliament for half the landmass of Scotland and the highlands. That is not democratic accountability. Cut the Lords, not MPs.

John Bercow: It was difficult to detect a question there, but the intellectual dexterity of the Minister will enable him briefly to reply.

Chris Skidmore: We have proposals on boundary changes in Scotland, and there is a consultation that I commend to all Members. Some seats in Scotland are twice the size of others, and that historical injustice must be rectified.

Peter Bone: The Minister is absolutely right that reducing the size of the House of Lords is not a priority, but neither is reducing the size of the Commons. As we are abolishing goodness knows how many MEPs and taking on their workloads, should not the Government look again at their proposal and equalise seats, which is quite correct, but keep the same number of Members of Parliament?

Chris Skidmore: The previous Parliament passed a law to ensure that we could reduce the number of seats from 650 to 600, but a delay occurred because Opposition Members decided to kick this can down the road. The reduction in the number of seats will save £66 million over the course of a Parliament. It is right that we should make savings and put our own House in order.

Charlie Elphicke: It is absolutely right that there should be equal votes and that we should cut the cost of politics in the House of Commons. It is absurd that there are no Scottish National party peers   in the House of Lords while the party has 56 Members in this House, and that there are 100 Liberal Democrat peers but a pathetic rump of only eight Members here. Does the Minister agree that this shows the need to rebalance membership of the House of Lords?

Chris Skidmore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The historic campaign for the equalisation of seats was initiated by the Chartists in their people’s manifesto back in 1838, and this Government are determined to deliver to ensure that this historic wrong is righted.

Douglas Chapman: There has been much speculation that a certain Nigel Farage will be joining the swarm of unelected bureaucrats in the House of Lords. Is Mr Farage to be rewarded with a peerage, or have the Government done enough damage already?

Chris Skidmore: All appointments to the House of Lords are scrutinised by an independent Committee, and it is right that that process should be followed.

Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend recall the words of Sir Winston Churchill when he said that democracy was not a particularly good system but the best that we had? Does he agree that, until someone comes up with a better idea, the House of Lords is perhaps not that bad?

Chris Skidmore: As I have said, House of Lords reform is not a priority in this Parliament; nor is it a priority for the general public. We want to establish  a consensus with the House of Lords, and it must be for the House of Lords to come up with that consensus.

Chris Bryant: Could we not at least get rid of the by-elections for hereditary peers? Earlier this year, the House of Lords decided to remove the second Baron Bridges because he had not turned up for five whole years. There was then a by-election, in which the 15th Earl of Cork and Orrery defeated the 12th Lord Vaux of Harrowden and the eighth Viscount Hood. Under the alternative vote system, the Earl of Limerick was bottom of the list. Does not this bring the whole system into disrepute? Is this “Blackadder” or Gilbert and Sullivan?

Chris Skidmore: When it comes to “Blackadder”, this was a Labour policy introduced by a Labour Government, so this is yet another U-turn from the Corbynistas.

Ooh!

Tommy Sheppard: I think that—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I can scarcely hear the hon. Gentleman. He must be heard.

Tommy Sheppard: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that people watching this debate will be terrified by the complacency of this Government. Does the Minister not realise that the twin actions of increasing without limit the number of unelected Members of Parliament while reducing the number of elected lawmakers is  seriously damaging this institution in the eyes of our own electorate and lowering the esteem in which we are held abroad?

Chris Skidmore: The Government agree with the primacy of the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman made those points in a debate on 26 October, and at that time the House agreed with the Government that this was not a priority and that our priority should be to equalise seats and to ensure that the historic principle of boundary reform occurs.

Departmental Efficiency Savings

Huw Merriman: What steps he is taking to help Government Departments deliver efficiency savings.

Ben Gummer: The Government are striving towards their manifesto commitment to achieve £20 billion of annual efficiency savings by 2020. Cabinet Office functions are supporting Departments by providing expert support and advice in all areas, including commercial property, infrastructure, fraud and error, and debt. In addition, I will be leading a review with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to see whether further savings are possible over that period.

John Bercow: I know the House will want to join me in congratulating the Minister on the recent arrival of his second child, a brother for Wilfred.

Huw Merriman: May I add my congratulations as well? I thank the Minister for his answer. How much did the Government deliver in efficiency savings over the last term and how much is to come?

Ben Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend and you, Mr Speaker.
We saved £18.6 billion in the previous Parliament. We hope to do better than that over this Parliament. We have made a good start with more than £1.5 billion saved by transforming how Government works, but there is more to do. It is a hard task, but we will complete it.

Gregory Campbell: May I first congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your energy efficiency saving this morning on the bicycle in Portcullis House for the poppy appeal? Is it possible for hon. Members and the wider public to track savings in various Departments to see the practical benefits of those savings?

Ben Gummer: The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible suggestion. As we evolve the single departmental plans, I hope to be able make the savings in individual Departments far more transparent. He is right to touch on that subject; it is something that I want to do more with.

Alan Mak: Government efficiency savings can be achieved through greater  use of new technology, such as GOV.UK Notify.  Will the Minister encourage its greater use by Whitehall Departments?

Ben Gummer: GOV.UK Notify is another excellent Government Digital Service product. We are putting more money into the GDS, which we are using more across Government. I hope that that will be one of many applications brought forward as a result of its success.

Alan Brown: Given that the cost of special advisers has almost doubled in 10 years and that the Tory Government are spending more on special advisers than the new Labour Government, would not dealing with that be a simple cost-cutting measure?

Ben Gummer: On the contrary, we have kept the cost of special advisers under review and fairly flat. The list of responsibilities has been published recently and the hon. Gentleman will see that that cost is fairly constant.

Voting Fraud

Neil Parish: What steps he is taking to tackle voting fraud.

Chris Skidmore: The Government are committed to tackling fraud in UK polls. We have already taken steps to improve the security of polls through the introduction of individual electoral registration. We are currently considering the findings and recommendations of the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) into electoral fraud. The Government will provide a full response in due course.

Neil Parish: In a democracy, we want as many people to vote and register as possible. In some constituencies, however, there is still too much electoral register fraud. What more can the Minister and Government do about that?

Chris Skidmore: For democracy to work for everyone, we need to ensure that it is clear and secure. The Government are determined to ensure that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible. We  note that the Electoral Commission has also made recommendations about ID in polling stations. We will reflect on the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar and respond in due course.

Tom Elliott: Does the Minister believe that lessons can be learned from the additional measures to tackle voter fraud in Northern Ireland?

Chris Skidmore: Obviously, the electoral system in Northern Ireland is separate and has seen advances when it comes to security around polling stations and the electoral process. The Government are interested in all such examples and will be happy to respond when we publish our findings following the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar.

Topical Questions

Jack Lopresti: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Ben Gummer: The Cabinet Office is responsible for delivering a democracy that works for everyone, supporting the design and delivery of Government policy, and driving efficiencies and reforms to make the Government work better.

Jack Lopresti: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the work of the Minister for the constitution, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), with my constituent Mehala Osborne and the domestic violence charity Survive to reform anonymous registration to ensure that women silenced by the current registration process will no longer be denied the chance to express their democratic will?

Ben Gummer: I will indeed join with my hon. Friend. His commitment to the cause is well known, as is the commitment of my hon. Friend the Minister for the constitution, who has really taken this on as something that he wants to achieve in his post. For survivors of domestic abuse, voting is more than just a cross on a ballot paper; it is a renewed statement of the freedom that is rightfully theirs.

Andrew Gwynne: Let us take the Minister back to the boundary review, because interestingly the Government payroll is not being cut in this process. Ministers should therefore listen to the Members sitting behind them, such as the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who has said:
“We are talking about reducing the number of people we elect at the ballot box, whilst stuffing the House of Lords with yet more people”.
If this is really not a partisan process, and given Brexit and the fact that we are removing 73 MEPs, is it not now time to have a fresh review, based on having 650 seats in this place?

Ben Gummer: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will start as he means to go on. I see that he has five Members on the Opposition Front-Bench, compared with our very modest two, which shows how we can cut the cost of politics just by being in power.

Bernard Jenkin: After the referendum, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee wrote to the Government suggesting that they should conduct a review of civil service capacity in view of the extra workload being piled on Whitehall. Can the Minister give any indication on whether such a review is being conducted? Would he consider conducting such a review?

Ben Gummer: The review is going on at the moment, and I am leading it. We have started by looking at senior civil service capacity, but it will go through the entire civil service. It is a very thorough process, and I am making sure that I am talking to all the Ministers leading Brexit-affected Departments to make sure that they are happy with the capacity of their offices.

Jeff Smith: I do not disagree with the Minister on equalising constituencies, but if we want equal constituencies based on proper data, surely the 2 million newly registered voters should be taken into account in that equalisation.

Chris Skidmore: The hon. Gentleman talks about data, so let us go back to the fact that if we delay boundary reform even further, we will be drawing up the seats on the basis of data, in England and Wales, from 2000—20 years ago. That is clearly unacceptable, which is why we must ensure that boundary reform takes place. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Far too many noisy private conversations are taking place, which is very unfair to Members who want to ask questions and Ministers who want to answer them. Let us hear the voice of the Vale of Clwyd, Dr James Davies.

James Davies: One benefit of devolution was meant to be that it would allow the comparison of different policy approaches to the same problems. With that in mind, will the Minister consider legislating to ensure the provision of comparable data across the UK?

Ben Gummer: My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. We are learning a lot from the devolved Administrations, just as they are learning from us. His point is well made, which is why we signed a concordat on statistical evidence a few months ago, ensuring that we are sharing  the same methods of evidence gathering across all the Administrations.

Alan Brown: Instead of using the single example of an expat war veteran to justify extending the franchise to UK citizens abroad, should the Minister not concentrate on those who live here and pay their taxes—EU citizens—and those who will have to live with the consequences, the 16 and 17-year-olds?

Chris Skidmore: Giving votes for life to those Britons who have lived abroad for more than 15 years was a manifesto commitment that will be delivered by this Government. We are determined to ensure that British people who live abroad are given the right to participate in our democracy, which is absolutely the right thing  to do.

Dominic Raab: I welcome the speech by the Minister for the Cabinet Office to the Reform think tank, in which he made the powerful case for public service reform, to make it more tailored to individual needs. May I urge him to be careful to ensure that, in delivering it, Whitehall does not end up exposing or misplacing personal data, as has happened in the past?

Ben Gummer: I will, and I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. It is of course important that we take people with us on this, but at its core we must remember that the state is there to serve people, not the other way round. That is why this Administration are putting themselves at the service of the British people, and I intend to ensure that public services reflect that fact.

Neil Gray: This Department has estimated that cutting the number of MPs to 600 will save £15 million a year. Library figures collated for me have shown that House of Lords allowances   alone cost £20 million a year, so does the Minister not accept that the cuts and savings to be made should be applied to the unelected House, not the elected Chamber?

Chris Skidmore: This Government are proud of the fact that the cost of the House of Lords has been reduced by 14% since 2010.

Henry Smith: It is good to see the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his place. Will he perhaps set out what his priorities will be?

Patrick McLoughlin: As Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I oversee the administration of the estates and the rents of the Duchy of Lancaster. I contribute to the Government’s policy and decision-making process by attending Cabinet and attending and chairing Cabinet Committees. This role is not without precedence under both Labour and Conservative Governments.

Kate Green: I am pleased that the Government plan to audit racial disparities in public service outcomes, but may I ask Ministers that, in doing so, they ensure that every Department and agency uses the 2011 census classifications, which distinguish Gypsies and Travellers?

Ben Gummer: That is a very helpful contribution from the hon. Lady, and I will indeed ensure that.

Seema Kennedy: The annual canvass is extremely expensive. What are the Government doing to reduce its cost?

Chris Skidmore: It is absolutely right that we make the system as efficient as possible and less expensive. To address both those aims, we are undertaking three pilots this year to test new approaches to conducting a canvass. I am also pleased to announce today that there will be 18 more pilots in England and Wales in 2017.

Christina Rees: Latest assessments suggest that only 51% of 16 to 17-year-olds are registered to vote, compared with 85% of adults. In Neath, we have had successful voter registration awareness events to encourage under-18s to register. Will the Minister please explain the Government’s plans to promote young people’s registration?

Chris Skidmore: As part of a democracy that works for everyone, we are determined that young people’s voices will be heard, which means going around the country, as I am doing in the coming weeks, to places such as Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool to talk to young people about their priorities and how we can ensure that they are fully involved in the democratic process.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Stephen Doughty: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 2 November.

Theresa May: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Stephen Doughty: We have no clarity on access to the single market, huge disadvantages still in energy costs and foreign steel being used in our key defence projects. We know that the Prime Minister likes to try to channel the Iron Lady, but when will she show some mettle in standing up for British-made steel?

Theresa May: This Government have stood up for British-made steel, and we have taken a number of measures that have improved the situation for the steel industry. The hon. Gentleman says that there is no clarity in relation to Brexit. I am very clear that what we want to achieve is the best possible deal for businesses in the United Kingdom, so that they can trade with, and operate within, the single European market.

Rehman Chishti: I applaud the Government’s continued commitment to infrastructure development, with 6,000 projects in the pipeline worth £480 billion. Will the Government quickly and speedily take forward the lower Thames crossing and extra investment in Kent roads, which will help to provide more homes, jobs and businesses, and help people in Kent, Medway and the Thames Gateway area?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and for recognising the contribution that the Government have made in increasing investment in infrastructure and the importance of that investment. We have consulted on proposals around a lower Thames crossing. There were more than 47,000 responses to that consultation. Those are now being considered, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will respond to that consultation in due course.

Jeremy Corbyn: May I take this opportunity to welcome Neasa Constance McGinn? I hope that the evidently effective crash course in midwifery undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) is not a sign to the Government that we believe in downgrading midwifery training.
Just a few months ago, on the steps of Downing Street, the Prime Minister promised to stand up for families who are “just managing” to get by. However, we now know that those were empty words, as this Government plan to cut work allowances for exactly those families who are just getting by. Is it not the case that her cuts to universal credit will leave millions worse off?

Theresa May: First, may I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the birth, I understand, of his granddaughter? [Interruption.] No? I am sorry. In that case, I am completely mystified. [Interruption.] In that case—[Interruption.] Wait for it. In that case, perhaps one should never trust a former Chief Whip. [Interruption.]
On the point that the right hon. Gentleman raised in relation to universal credit, the introduction of universal credit was an important reform that was brought about in our welfare system. It is a simpler system, so people   can see much more easily where they stand in relation to benefits. Crucially, the point about universal credit is making sure that work always pays. As people work more, they earn more. It is right that we do not want to see people just being written off to a life on benefits and that we are encouraging people to get into the workplace.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is a bit unfair to blame a former Chief Whip for some little bit of confusion—very ungallant. Can we not just admire my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North for his work? [Interruption.] It is extremely rude to point.
The Prime Minister’s predecessor abandoned those same cuts to working people through the tax credit system. Now the right hon. Lady as Prime Minister is enacting them through universal credit. The Centre for Social Justice says that these cuts will leave 3 million families £1,000 per year worse off. Why is the Prime Minister slipping the same cuts in through the back door?

Theresa May: At least my former Chief Whip has a job. On the serious point that the right hon. Gentleman raises about universal credit, I repeat what I have just said. I think it is important that we look at why universal credit has been introduced. It was introduced because, under the benefits system under the Labour Government, we saw too many people finding that they were better off on benefits than they were in work. What is important is that we value work and we value getting people into work if they are able to work, but we want a system that is fair both to those who need the benefits and to those who pay for the benefits through their taxes. There are many families struggling to make ends meet who are paying for the benefits of others. I want a system that is fair to them as well.

Jeremy Corbyn: This week, an Oxford University study found that there is a direct link between rising levels of benefit sanctions and rising demand for food banks. A million people accessed a food bank last year to receive a food parcel; only 40,000 did so in 2010. I welcome the Government’s promise to review the work capability assessment for disabled people, but will the Prime Minister further commit to reviewing the whole punitive sanctions regime?

Theresa May: It is absolutely right that in our welfare system, we have a system that makes sure that those people who receive benefits are those for whom it is right to receive benefits. That is why we have assessments in our welfare system. But it is also important in our welfare system that we ensure that those who are able to get into the workplace are making every effort to get into the workplace. That is why we have sanctions in our system. What the right hon. Gentleman wants is no assessments, no sanctions and unlimited welfare. That is not fair to those who are accessing the welfare system, and it is not fair to the taxpayers who pay for it.

Jeremy Corbyn: According to a Sheffield Hallam University study, one in five claimants who have been sanctioned became homeless as a result. Many of those included families with children.
Could I recommend the Prime Minister supports British cinema, and takes herself along to a cinema to see a Palme d’Or-winning film, “I, Daniel Blake”? While she is doing so, perhaps she could take the Work  and Pensions Secretary with her, because he described the film as “monstrously unfair” and then went on to admit that he had never seen it, so he has obviously got a very fair sense of judgment on this. But I will tell the Prime Minister what is monstrously unfair: ex-servicemen like David Clapson dying without food in his home due to the Government’s sanctions regime. It is time that we ended this institutionalised barbarity against often very vulnerable people.

Theresa May: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that, of course, it is important that, in our welfare system, we ensure that those who need the support that the state is giving them through the benefits system are able to access that. But it is also important in our system that those who are paying for it feel that the system is fair to them as well. That is right; that is why we need to have work capability assessments—it is why we need to have sanctions in our system. Now, the right hon. Gentleman has a view that there should be no assessments, no sanctions and unlimited welfare. I have to say to him that the Labour party is drifting away from the views of Labour voters; it is the Conservative party that understands working-class people.

Jeremy Corbyn: The housing benefit bill has gone up by more than £4 billion because of high levels of rent and the necessity of supporting people with that. Is that a sensible use of public money? I think not.
In response to the March Budget, I asked the Chancellor to abandon the £30 cut for disabled people on employment and support allowance, who are unable to work, but who, with support, may be able to work in the future—they want to be able to get into work. What evidence does the Prime Minister have that imposing poverty on people with disabilities actually helps them into work?

Theresa May: I am pleased to say that what we have seen under this Government is nearly half a million more disabled people actually in the workplace. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has launched a Green Paper on work, which is starting to look at how we can continue to provide and increase support for those who are disabled who want to get into the workplace. But the right hon. Gentleman started his question by asking me about the increase in the money that is being spent on housing benefit. If he thinks that the amount of money being spent on housing benefit is so important, why did he oppose the changes we made to housing benefit to reduce the housing benefit bill?

Jeremy Corbyn: As the Prime Minister well knows, my concern, and that of my party, is about the incredible amount of money being paid into the private rented sector in excessive rents, and that could be brought under control and handled much better.
Many people in this House will have been deeply moved by the article by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) about the tragic death of her son and having to take out a bank loan to cover the funeral costs. The Prime Minister may be aware that the Sunday Mirror, with the support of the Labour party, is calling for an end to council charges for the cost to parents of laying a child to rest. It would cost £10 million a year—a very small proportion of total  Government expenditure—to ensure that every council could ensure that those going through the horror of laying a child to rest did not have a bill imposed on them by the local authority to put that child to rest. I hope the Prime Minister will be able to consider this and act accordingly.

Theresa May: I recognise the issue that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. There are, of course, facilities available through the social fund funeral expenses payment scheme for payments to be made available to people who qualify and meet the eligibility conditions. Of course it is difficult for anybody when they have to go through the tragedy of losing a child and then face consequences of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. We are making sure, of course, in relation to local authorities, that they now have the extra revenues available to them through business rates and other local revenues. It is up to councils to consider what they wish to do on this, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman that there are facilities available through those social fund funeral expenses to deal with the issue that he raises.

David Mackintosh: Northamptonshire has for a long time had a growing population without the right level of funding for our public services. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the current reviews of the funding formulas for schools, policing and health will properly reflect the population growths in Northampton and the rest of the county so that our services get the funding they need?

Theresa May: We have protected the schools budget in relation to funding paid per pupil, and we are protecting the police budget. But of course, as we look at the various ways—the various funding formulas—through which we are funding public services in my hon. Friend’s constituency and in the county of Northamptonshire, we will be looking at the very issue of what is right in terms of the needs of the local area and the numbers of people there.

Angus Robertson: It is with sadness that we learned of the death of a serviceman in a live firing exercise at the range in Tain. No doubt the Prime Minister and right hon. and hon. Members across this House will extend their condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of the serviceman who has died so tragically.
The Prime Minister says that she wants to tackle international and domestic tax avoidance and serious criminality. SNP Members support this. If she were told that specific UK financial vehicles were being used for tax avoidance and other serious criminality, what would she do about it?

Theresa May: First, I am sure that, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the whole House would wish to pass on our condolences to the friends and family of the serviceman who has died at the Tain range.
The right hon. Gentleman mentions tax avoidance. Yes indeed, we have done a significant amount in relation to tax avoidance. He asks what anybody should do if they have evidence of people actually avoiding tax. I suggest that he speaks to HMRC.

Angus Robertson: Scottish limited partnerships were established by this House in 1907, and they are being aggressively marketed internationally, especially in eastern Europe. The International Monetary Fund has warned of the risk posed by SLPs in the fight against global money laundering and against organised crime. It is now a matter of public record that SLPs have acted as
“fronts for websites peddling child abuse images, and…have been part of major corruption cases”
in Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Latvia and Moldova, including in the arms industry. Given the seriousness of this issue and the Prime Minister’s commitment to deal with criminality, but the lack of progress on SLPs, will she agree to meet me to discuss a joint way forward?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman raises issues around criminality and investigations into criminal activity that is taking place, and talks about the issue of websites peddling child abuse and child sexual exploitation. It is precisely in order to increase our ability to deal with this criminal activity that we created the National Crime Agency and have been ensuring that we are working with the City on other issues such as money laundering. We are looking at the whole question of how we can ensure that we are taking effective action on criminal activity. I am pleased to say to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] He keeps asking me to meet him. As he knows, I do meet him on occasion—I am always happy to do so—but if he wants to talk to me about dealing with criminal activity, then I will be able to tell him about the work that has been done over the past six years under this Government in terms of the National Crime Agency, working with the City on money laundering, and enhancing our ability to deal with exactly the sort of criminal activity he is talking about.

Mark Pawsey: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is disappointing that we did not hear from the Leader of the Opposition any welcome for the huge boost to manufacturing and employment that has come from Nissan’s decision to produce two new models at its factory? Does she agree that that decision demonstrates great confidence in the UK, with benefits throughout the supply chain, which includes companies such as Automotive Insulations in my constituency?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right in  two senses. First, it is extremely disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition has not welcomed this, unlike his colleague, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who has welcomed the fact that these jobs have been saved in her constituency and in the supply chain around the country—that supply chain is every bit as important. I know that Automotive Insulations in my hon. Friend’s constituency is receiving money as part of a project funded through the Advanced Propulsion Centre, and I wish it all the very best for the future.

David Simpson: What assurances can the Prime Minister give to the agri-food sector right across the United Kingdom that it will be given the important status required in Brexit negotiations?

Theresa May: I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that we are determined to get the best possible deal for the British people on exiting the European  Union. We are looking at the various sectors and we are very conscious of the importance of the food and agricultural sector across the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland. We will do everything we can, including listening to representations made by the Northern Ireland Executive, to ensure that we get the best deal possible for our agri-food sector.

Ben Howlett: Last week’s announcement on the report on accelerated access to medicines will have a positive impact on the lives of children and adults with a rare genetic or undiagnosed condition. For decades, patients have struggled to get access to medicines in a timely fashion, and the work  of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) made massive progress. Will the Prime Minister confirm that if the programme is successful with the first five to 10 drugs in the first year, it will be extended to further drugs in following years?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right to welcome the accelerated access review and to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who has done so much to place life sciences in the UK on the agenda and to ensure that the UK develops as the best possible place to develop new drugs, which is exactly what we want to see. The Department of Health will look at the review’s recommendations and respond to them shortly. This is an important development in our ability to accelerate access to drugs, which is to the benefit of patients.

Callum McCaig: In recent weeks, three Government Ministers have expressed three different views on what will happen, while industry cries out for clarity. I am talking not of Brexit, surprisingly, but of the oil and gas industry. Will the autumn statement provide additional support for the industry, or is the Prime Minister happy to sit back and see thousands more jobs lost?

Theresa May: We understand the challenges faced by the UK oil and gas industry and we take them very seriously. That is why we established the Oil and Gas Authority and why we have taken action, with the £2.3 billion package of measures in the last two Budgets, to make sure that the North sea continues to attract investment, and to safeguard the future of that vital national asset. We have taken a range of measures. We understand the concerns about the oil and gas industry, which is why the Government have already taken action.

Kelly Tolhurst: Rochester airport and Medway city industrial estate in my constituency are home to a growing number of successful science and tech SMEs that are doing wonders for innovation and our economy. Ahead of my right hon. Friend’s trade mission to India, I congratulate her on her decision to take with her a cohort of SMEs to help to increase trading relationships with emerging economies. Will her delegation continue to ensure that all parts our economy are able to seize the opportunities that present themselves as we leave the EU?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of small and medium-sized businesses, particularly in the technology industry. That  is why I am pleased that I will take leading small and medium-sized businesses from the life sciences and technology sectors with me on my forthcoming trip to India. It is important to enable them to forge trading links with India, and I assure my hon. Friend that, as we look at the arrangements for leaving the European Union, we will take the interests of all sectors into account.

Angela Smith: Tata Speciality is a big employer in my constituency and its workforce are worried by the long period of uncertainty enacted by Tata Steel. Will the Prime Minister use her trade visit to India to secure from the company the future of steel production in Britain, and to convey the importance of Tata acting as a responsible owner and, in the case of Tata Speciality, seller of its UK steel assets?

Theresa May: I can assure the hon. Lady that we recognise both the importance of steel and the importance of Tata in the United Kingdom. That is why, as a Government, we have had discussions with Tata on the future of steel here in the United Kingdom, and we will continue to do so.

David Warburton: As I am sure the Prime Minister is aware, my constituency apparently contains more cows than any other. That means world-class cheese, from Godminster and Barber’s to Montgomery’s Cheddar, Wkye Farms and many more. Can my right hon. Friend assure the west country’s farmers that in negotiating the best deal for Britain in the coming weeks and months, the interests of our agricultural industry and farming community will be foremost in her mind? Will she pop down to Somerset soon for a chunk of Cheddar and perhaps a drop of cider?

John Bercow: West country cheese! I think we are clear.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend’s invitation for some west country cheese and cider is difficult to refuse, so I look forward at some stage to coming down to Somerset and being able to sample those products. He is absolutely right, as others in this Chamber have been, about the importance of our agricultural sector to economies across the UK. Particular parts of the UK rely heavily on the agricultural sector, and we will be taking their needs and considerations into account as we negotiate and deliver the best possible deal for this country in leaving the EU.

Jeff Smith: This morning the High Court ruled that the Government have comprehensively failed to tackle air pollution properly. Which does the Prime Minister feel is worse: the Government losing in the High Court for the second time, or the 40,000 early deaths that result from air pollution every year in the UK?

Theresa May: I have been asked about air quality in this Chamber previously at Prime Minister’s questions, and I have always made it clear that we recognise that there is more for the Government to do. We have been doing a lot in this area. We have been  putting extra money into actions that will relieve the issues around air quality, but we recognise that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs now has to look at the judgment that has been made by the courts, and we have to look again at the proposals that we will bring forward. Nobody in this House doubts the importance of the issue of air quality. We have taken action, but there is more to do and we will do it.

Robert Courts: The Prime Minister will remember visiting the Witney constituency recently. I am pleased to report that Chipping Norton has been shortlisted for the Great British High Street awards. Will she join me in congratulating the small businesses of Chipping Norton, and can she tell me what support Government offer to the small businesses in our market towns?

Theresa May: May I take this opportunity, which is my first opportunity, to welcome my hon. Friend to this Chamber? I congratulate him on his excellent result in the by-election.
My hon. Friend’s question brings back many happy memories for me, because when I was a child Chipping Norton was our local town. I used to go there and spend my pocket money assiduously in the shops, so I have done my bit for his high street in Chipping Norton. We are very clear, as a Government, that the action we have taken on issues such as business rates is there to help to support small businesses.

John Bercow: We are always grateful for a bit of extra information, and we have now had it.

Gavin Newlands: This Government’s record on immigration detention is disgraceful, with the UK being the only country in the EU that has no time limit on detention. Amid concern over plans to replace Dungavel with a short-term detention facility near Glasgow airport, the people of Renfrewshire want no part in these inhumane and ineffective practices. Will she use the closure of Dungavel as an opportunity to rethink detention policy and end this stain on our human rights record?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman will know that a lot of work has been done by the Government on the whole question of immigration detention, and a number of changes have been made. An independent review took place about a year ago on the whole question of detention of people in the immigration estate. It is important to realise that where people are due to be removed from this country and there is the prospect that they could be lost to the system if they are not detained, there are circumstances in which it is right to detain them in the immigration estate. We need to make sure we have got that estate right, and that is why a lot of work has been done on this. The fundamental point is that I suspect he does not think we should detain anybody in relation to immigration enforcement, but we believe there are those who are rightly detained before we remove them from this country.

Charles Walker: When people make fun of Christianity in this country, it rightly turns the other cheek. When a young gymnast, Louis Smith,  makes fun of another religion widely practised in this country, he is hounded on Twitter and by the media and suspended by his association. For goodness’ sake, this man received death threats, and we have all looked the other way. My question to the Prime Minister is this: what is going on in this country, because I no longer understand the rules?

Theresa May: I understand the level of concern that my hon. Friend has raised in relation to this matter. There is a balance that we need to find. We value freedom of expression and freedom of speech in this country—that is absolutely essential in underpinning our democracy—but we also value tolerance of others and tolerance in relation to religions. This is one of the issues we have looked at in the counter-extremism strategy that the Government have produced. Yes, it is right that people can have that freedom of expression, but that right has a responsibility too, which is the responsibility to recognise the importance of tolerance of others.

Chris Stephens: Today’s  leads on DWP issues. Is the Prime Minister aware that a telephone call to the Department for Work and Pensions by a severely disabled person or their carer can cost up to 45p a minute, which, with an average length of a call of 13 minutes, is a considerable sum from their social security entitlement? Should a disabled citizen pay this price, or does the Prime Minister agree with me that we should end this telephone tax on the most vulnerable in our society?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that has been raised on a number of occasions in this House. That is why the Government are implementing new guidelines in relation to the operation of these telephone lines. The number of lines that are costing people in the way to which he refers is being reduced, so the Government have recognised the issue and are taking action.

Maria Caulfield: The past 18 months have been hell for commuters in my constituency of Lewes using the Southern rail network. Last night, a journey that should have taken just over an hour took over four hours. May I beg the Prime Minister to intervene on the Southern rail network? While we have a country that works for everyone, in Sussex we have a railway that works for no one.

Theresa May: I feel for my hon. Friend in relation to the journey she had to go through last night and the extended time that it took. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been taking action in working with Southern rail and Network Rail in relation to the improvements that are necessary. We have stepped in to invest £20 million specifically to tackle the breakdown on the Southern rail network, which is proving so difficult for passengers. I recognise the degree of concern about this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is on the case, and is working to ensure those improvements.

Steve McCabe: Has the Prime Minister spotted the ludicrous refusal by FIFA, the footballing federation, to let our  players wear poppies at the forthcoming Scotland-England game? Will she tell the respective associations that, in this country, we decide when to wear poppies and that we will be wearing them at Wembley?

Theresa May: I think the stance that has been taken by FIFA is utterly outrageous. Our football players want to recognise and respect those who have given their lives for our safety and security. I think it is absolutely right that they should be able to do so. This is for our football associations, but I think a clear message is going from this House that we want our players to be able to wear poppies. I have to say to FIFA that before they start telling us what to do they jolly well ought to sort their own house out.

Julian Brazier: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her recent announcement of a taskforce to stamp out the vile business of modern slavery? Will she join me in congratulating my constituent Mike Emberson and the Medaille Trust on their 10 years of work with the victims and the 70 places they now provide across their homes for these most unfortunate women?

Theresa May: I am very pleased to endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. I have met representatives of the Medaille Trust and talked to some of the victims they have helped. It is absolutely right that we continue the momentum in our fight against modern slavery. This country is leading the world and we should continue the fight because, sadly, too much slavery is still taking place on the streets and in the towns and villages of this country. That is why the taskforce I have set up will continue that momentum. We will be relentless in our pursuit of eradicating modern slavery.

Gordon Marsden: In July, the armed forces charity SSAFA published an in-depth survey of nearly 1,000 working-age veterans. Some 85% of them thought the UK did not give them enough support and only 16% thought the armed forces covenant was being implemented effectively. What is the Prime Minister doing personally to change that?

Theresa May: We absolutely recognise the debt we owe to our veterans. That is why, through the armed forces covenant and throughout the work the Ministry of Defence is doing, we increasingly recognise the support that is necessary for veterans. The hon. Gentleman talks about what we can do. One thing we can do is to help people who come out of the armed forces to find their way into the world of work. That is why it is important both that we have a system that helps them to find the support that is necessary to get into the world of work and that we have an economy that is providing the jobs that people need.

Martin Vickers: This week is Offshore Wind Week. The development of the offshore wind sector is vital to my Cleethorpes constituency. Will my right hon. Friend assure the industry and my constituents that the Government will continue to work with the industry to develop future jobs for young people, with a particular emphasis on training?

Theresa May: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government will continue to work with the industry. It has been an important development for the United Kingdom and makes up an important part of the energy we generate from renewables. As he says, it does provide jobs and we need to ensure that we look at the training that will enable people to take up those jobs. That is why skills form part of the work we are doing on our future industrial strategy.

Nigel Dodds: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is highly irresponsible and, indeed, dangerous for people to talk up the prospect of increased violence in Northern Ireland as a result of our leaving the EU, and that people should use the agreed institutions that were set up under the various agreements, not stand outside them or create new ones? Does she also agree that Brexit will not result in any change, alteration or impeding of the way in which the regions, countries and people within the UK connect with one another?

Theresa May: I am very happy to give the  right hon. Gentleman that assurance in relation to movement around the United Kingdom. No change will take place. We will ensure that Brexit is a good deal for the whole of the United Kingdom. Those who wish to encourage violence off the back of that should, frankly, be ashamed of themselves. It is essential that we all work together to make a success of this and get the best possible opportunities for people across the whole of the United Kingdom.

John Howell: Will the Prime Minister join me in praising Henley-on-Thames for receiving its first tranche of community infrastructure levy money at the higher rate because it has a neighbourhood plan? Will she join me in praising neighbourhood planning generally as the best means of giving communities a say over the planning system?

Theresa May: I am very happy to congratulate my neighbouring MP and Henley-on-Thames on that achievement. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that neighbourhood plans are a crucial part of the planning system. That is how local people can have a real say over what is happening in their local area.

Rosie Winterton: May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn)? Moving swiftly from midwives to doctors, is the Prime Minister aware that doctors in Doncaster face a crisis in primary care, because as GPs retire, it is proving almost impossible to get new ones to take over their practices? Because of restrictions in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, NHS bodies cannot take the necessary action, for example putting in salaried GPs. Will she do something about this matter quickly? Otherwise, many of my constituents will be left without a doctor.

Theresa May: After my unfortunate mistake earlier about the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), I failed to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), so am happy now to do so.
It is important to have GPs coming through, so that we can replace those who are retiring. Over the past six years we have seen thousands more GPs in our NHS. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary  of State for Health are ensuring that we have a programme to bring more doctors into training, so that places such as the right hon. Lady’s constituency, and those of other Members across the House, have GPs in the numbers needed.

POINT OF ORDER

David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you do anything about the fact that the Home Office is not observing named days? On 17 October, the Home Secretary made a statement on the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, in the course of which she said that she had passed on a request that Dame Lowell Goddard should appear before the Home Affairs Committee—as you know, Dame Lowell Goddard had resigned as the inquiry’s chair.  I put down a named day written question to the  Home Secretary asking if she would put the relevant correspondence with Dame Lowell Goddard in the Library. There was an interim reply saying that the Home Office was unable to answer the question on that particular day. A few days later I therefore put down another question, due for answer yesterday, asking when the Home Secretary would make a substantive reply to the first question. There has been no reply at all.
The Home Office, as I understand the position, seems to be in such a state of crisis about written questions that it is not able to answer them—unless it does not want to provide an answer in the first place. This seems quite simple to me: the Home Secretary could say that she had placed the correspondence in the Library or else say what she meant when she said what she had passed on the information. It is hardly a complex question, so why do I have to raise a point of order with you, Mr Speaker?

John Bercow: It is a very curious state of affairs to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. If he has a wider concern about overall response rates to questions it is of course open to him to write to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the Chair of the Procedure Committee, which keeps an eye on these matters. In relation to this particular question, the situation seems rather curious. However, experience tells me that when a Member raises his or her disquiet about a lengthy delay in securing a reply to a parliamentary question, that reply is, thereafter, ordinarily forthcoming very quickly. If the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt on that matter, he can always have a word with his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who has found it expedient to complain from time to time and has then secured very quick replies. The Leader of the House will have the hon. Gentleman’s interests at heart and I think a solution will be found, possibly within hours.

David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I will persist if that does not happen.

John Bercow: If I may very politely say so, that observation was superfluous, in the sense that I do not think that any Member of the House would have expected anything less of the hon. Gentleman. He is nothing if not persistent and tenacious to a fault.

BRITISH VICTIMS OF TERRORISM (ASSET-FREEZING AND COMPENSATION)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Andrew Rosindell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the freezing and seizing of assets belonging to states or organisations who sponsor or perpetrate acts of terrorism for the purposes of enabling compensation to be paid to the British victims of such terrorism; to provide a definition of British victims for the purpose of eligibility for such compensation; and for connected purposes.
Today, I lay before the House a Bill that will give hope to all British citizens who have suffered at the hands of terrorism—hope that one day soon their own United Kingdom Government might be obliged to  act decisively against the perpetrators and backers of these horrific crimes, and deliver justice to all those whose lives have been so cruelly cut short, or have suffered injury or loss. My Bill would give Her Majesty’s Government direct power to freeze or seize assets of any state or organisation that sponsors or perpetrates such acts. IRA terrorism, supported by Colonel Gaddafi’s regime, is the most significant example in recent times of when British citizens have been failed by their own Government in seeking justice for crimes committed against them, but in today’s world there are new threats and new generations of terrorists who seek to harm British people. My Bill will mandate Governments to seek compensation for all British victims of terrorism, providing them with the powers they need to do so.
As chairman of the parliamentary support group for victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism, I am proud to have championed, along with my colleagues, the cause to obtain compensation for the victims of these dreadful crimes, and to follow on the good work of the former Member for Thurrock, Andrew Mackinlay, to whom I pay heartfelt tribute for his steadfast support for the campaign for justice for the victims of terrorism perpetrated by the IRA.
Many of us have friends, family or constituents who have suffered at the hands of politically motivated terrorism. Last year marked a quarter of a century since the assassination of my friend and former Member for Eastbourne, Ian Gow, whose murder at the hands of the IRA in July 1990 had a profound effect on me and on so many others who knew Ian as a soldier, lawyer, parliamentarian, friend, and staunch defender of Queen and country. In this Chamber, we commemorate with personal shields our own fallen colleagues who were victims of terrorism: Ian Gow, Airey Neave, Robert Bradford and Sir Anthony Berry, who was killed in the Grand hotel, Brighton in 1984. All were victims of IRA-INLA terrorism.
Terrorism in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s had a profound effect on so many of my generation, who remember growing up with the threat of bombs in London, Belfast and towns and cities across the United Kingdom. Indeed, 9 February 1996 will always be etched on my mind. I visited the Britannia hotel in Docklands to discuss plans for an international dinner I had organised, to be held on 1 October that year, in honour of Lady Thatcher. I travelled back via South Quay station and arrived home in Romford only to watch the “ITN News” with  horror, as I learnt about the devastating bomb explosion that had occurred soon after I had boarded the docklands light railway. That bombing, as well as so many other acts of terrorism by the IRA, was carried out using explosives supplied by the Libyan regime, yet so many years later victims have not received the compensation they rightly deserve. Some of the victims and their families who suffered that trauma are now elderly or have passed away.
Zaoui Berezag was a victim of the Canary Wharf bombing, and was left severely mentally and physically impaired; he was cared for by his devoted wife Gemma until she sadly died last year. They never received one penny in compensation. Victims of the Harrods bombing of 17 December 1983, such as the family of WPC Jane Arbuthnot and Police Inspector Stephen Dodd, did not receive compensation, while the family of an American who was killed precisely in the same place at the same time did receive compensation. That is because, unlike the UK Government, the United States Government, under President George W Bush, fought and won the argument with the Gaddafi regime for American victims.
How can it be justified that some victims should receive compensation while others do not? Surely it should be settled when the victims or their families are still alive. It is truly terrible that British victims have been treated so differently than Americans. Their Government stood by their victims; our Government did not.
Each time the issue of compensation for these deserving victims is raised, we have until now received the same empty response from Governments of all persuasions. Each time, we hear weak excuses for not pursuing a way of bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion for the British victims of terrorism. Each time, the long-hurting victims of the IRA-Gaddafi’s regime listen in, only to be let down and left to wait indefinitely.
These wicked acts took place a long time ago and many of the victims fear that, unless action is taken soon, they will not be around to see this matter concluded and will never receive the justice and compensation they deserve. Time is running out, so today I bring this Bill to the Floor of the House with the aim of giving Her Majesty’s Government the power to act and resolve this issue by making provision for the freezing and seizing of  assets belonging to any state or organisation that sponsors or perpetrates acts of terrorism against a British citizen. I include in that category citizens of Ireland, as well as any citizens of our Crown dependencies or overseas territories that might have been affected.
When sanctions against Libya are eventually lifted, it is vital that we do not miss the opportunity finally to bring this matter to a close and come to an agreement with any future Government in Tripoli. The British victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism must never be forgotten, and we must not discard the one bargaining tool we have—of frozen assets—to ensure that justice is served.
Over many decades, Governments have both missed and avoided opportunities to bring justice to the victims. This cannot be allowed to happen one moment longer. It would be intolerable if when the assets are unfrozen, the UK is unable to ensure that talks are opened and had no power to act. Just as the Libyan people were victims of Gaddafi, the British victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism are too, and it is the duty of Her Majesty’s Government to fight to bring justice.
This Bill proposes a thorough basis for legislation to allow Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that eventually, however many years it takes, the UK victims of the IRA-Gaddafi regime will eventually receive compensation and justice. I say to the House that we need a law that ensures that any future victims of terrorism will not have to suffer the same trauma. That is why my Bill is important, not just for the victims of IRA terrorism, but for those British citizens who may, God forbid, become victims of terrorism in years hence. So it is for the defence, the well-being and the protection of all of Her Majesty’s subjects that I commend this Bill to  the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Andrew Rosindell, James Cartlidge, Mr Nigel Dodds, Kate Hoey, Sir Gerald Howarth, Daniel Kawczynski, Danny Kinahan, Mr Khalid Mahmood, Dr Paul Monaghan, Ian Paisley, Gavin Robinson and Henry Smith present the Bill.
Andrew Rosindell accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February 2017, and to be printed (Bill 88).

OPPOSITION DAY - [11TH ALLOTTED DAY]OPPOSITION DAY

COMMUNITY PHARMACIES

John Bercow: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.

Jon Ashworth: I beg to move,
That this House notes that community pharmacies are valued assets that offer face-to-face healthcare advice which relieves pressure on other NHS services; calls on the Government to rethink its changes to community pharmacy funding; and further calls on the Government to ensure that community pharmacies are protected from service reduction and closure and that local provision of community pharmacy services is protected.
This is an issue that affects many of our constituents, and it has aroused considerable opposition from so many of them that 2.2 million people have signed a petition. Community pharmacists, I am sure, have lobbied Members of all parties about these cuts and have explained why they should be opposed. Indeed, Members of all parties have raised their concerns and their opposition to these cuts.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), who has campaigned tirelessly on this issue, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron). Government Members have also raised their opposition in Westminster Hall debates, Adjournment debates and parliamentary questions. Their opposition to the cuts is entirely understandable.
When the Government announced, in December last year, that they were going to pursue the cuts, they talked of cutting the budget for community pharmacy services by £170 million, with further cuts to follow. Opposition to the cuts was clear, and indeed was heightened when the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who I see in his place and for whom I have tremendous respect, suggested that the cuts could lead to the closure of up to 3,000 community pharmacies.

Andrew Slaughter: We have had a lot of correspondence from local pharmacists and their customers worried about essential parts of the local community such as businesses, but is it not also the case that, with massive cuts in acute services and with primary care under pressure, those pharmacies provide an essential and cost-effective part of the local health service, which we simply cannot do without?

Jon Ashworth: My hon. Friend has anticipated my argument—I could probably sit down now that he has put it so eloquently, but I shall plough on while I have the indulgence of the House.
I was saying that the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire had said that the cuts might lead to some 3,000 community pharmacies closing. Then, of course, the right hon. Gentleman left his post in the Department of Health, which we are all very sad about. Now we have a new Minister, and we are delighted to  welcome the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) to his place—not least because in one of his first interventions when he was allowed out, he visited the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s annual conference in September and said he was delaying the cuts. He said:
“I think it is right that we spend the time, particularly me as an incoming minister, to make sure that we are making the correct decision”.
He continued by saying that
“what we do is going to be right for you, is going to be right for the NHS and right for the public more generally.”
Well, if the Minister had left it there—with that U-turn—he would have won the praise of Labour Members.
Unfortunately, we then had a U-turn on the U-turn from the Minister. When the Minister came before the House last month we found out that, far from having listened, taken account of various consultations and decided to do what was best for the NHS, he intended to impose a 12% cut on current levels to pharmacy budgets for the remainder of this financial year—giving pharmacists just six weeks’ notice—and a 7% cut the year after that.

Kate Green: rose—

Catherine McKinnell: rose—

Jon Ashworth: Because she represents my mother’s home town, I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston.

Kate Green: It is a privilege to represent my hon. Friend’s mother, and he, of course, knows my constituency well. The constituency has high levels of deprivation, and our primary care services face incredible pressure owing to unsuitable practice premises and the difficulty of recruiting GPs. Does my hon. Friend agree that with only seven weeks’ notice, it is impossible for GPs, other primary care providers and pharmacists to accommodate and make provision for these cuts in a way that will allow them to continue to support deprived communities in my constituency and, indeed, the constituencies of all Members?

Jon Ashworth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the cuts have aroused so much opposition from not just Labour but Conservative Members.

Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Over the past few years, a significant amount of work has been put into the Think Pharmacy First campaign, whose aim is to take pressure off GPs, ambulances and A & E services, but is “Think Pharmacy First for cuts and closures” really what the Government have in mind?

Jon Ashworth: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point, which completely blows apart many of the arguments that the Government have advanced in recent years.

Jeremy Quin: Given the clustering of pharmacies, does the hon. Gentleman believe that no better way of funding the service can be envisaged?

Jon Ashworth: The cuts are not aimed at clusters. They are completely arbitrary, and they will result in the closure of many pharmacies in some of the most deprived parts of the country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jon Ashworth: I want to make a bit of progress, because I know that many other Members wish to speak.
The cuts will mean that patients, many of them elderly and unable to travel long distances, will be forced to go elsewhere for essential medical advice and support. What we need from the Minister now are the details of how many pharmacies will close. The previous Minister, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, told us that up to 3,000 community pharmacies—a quarter of all pharmacies—could close.

Alistair Burt: It may be helpful if I make a brief intervention at this stage. I gave an estimate which was based on what we thought was a possible worst-case scenario. The Department never had any plans to close pharmacies. It was the best estimate that I had at the time, but it was not a definitive figure.

Jon Ashworth: The right hon. Gentleman is an extremely experienced former health Minister, possibly the most extreme—[Laughter.] He is definitely not an extremist, but he is possibly the most experienced Conservative former Health Minister apart from, perhaps, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). It is very noble of him to try to get the Minister off the hook, but the fact remains that he was the one who said that 3,000 pharmacies would close, and we will continue to remind Ministers of that.

Rosie Winterton: rose—

Jon Ashworth: I will give way to the former Chief Whip, but then I will make some progress.

Rosie Winterton: Doncaster pharmacists have told me that at least 20 pharmacies in the town will close as a result of the cuts. That is their estimate, on the ground. They have also told me that the Government should sit down with pharmacists and engage in meaningful discussions about pharmacy delivery. For example, setting up a minor ailments service and cutting the drugs budget could possibly save the NHS £5 million in Doncaster and £650 million overall.

Jon Ashworth: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. She was not only an exceptional Chief Whip but an exceptional pharmacies Minister in the last Labour Government, and she knows how foolhardy it would be to make cuts in the pharmacy sector.

Andrew Murrison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jon Ashworth: I should like to make a bit of progress, if I may. As I said earlier, I am extremely conscious that other Members wish to speak.
As we have heard, the former Health Minister said that 3,000 community pharmacies could close. When pressed about the figures last month, the current Minister said
“no community will be left without a pharmacy.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2016; Vol. 615.]
I hope he will confirm that he still stands by that statement. He also claimed:
“Nobody is talking about thousands of pharmacies closing”. —[Official Report, 17 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 602-3.]
He obviously did not receive the memo from the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. But what did he say when he was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) about the number of closures? What soothing, reassuring words did he offer to all our constituents? He said, “I do not know.”
I am sorry that the Minister has not got a clue, but I hope that when he winds up the debate he will be able to tell us how many pharmacies will close as a result of these cuts. If he is not prepared to tell us that, will he tell us how many services will be cut?

Oliver Colvile: rose—

Jon Ashworth: I will give way to the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy, but then I must make progress.

Oliver Colvile: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of pharmacies has increased by 18% over the past 10 years?

Jon Ashworth: I know that the hon. Gentleman works tirelessly as a champion for pharmacies, but he knows that these proposals will mean cuts in many services.

Maria Eagle: Many pharmacies in Halewood deliver medication, up to 8.30 pm, to elderly and vulnerable people who cannot get out of the house, and to care homes. What does my hon. Friend think will happen if those pharmacies have to close?

Jon Ashworth: I do not need to say what I think; I need to say what the sector thinks, and the sector has made it clear today that it will have to cut services such as the delivery of medicines to some of the most elderly and vulnerable members of society.

Andrew Murrison: rose—

Ben Bradshaw: rose—

Jon Ashworth: I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, but then I really must make some progress.

Ben Bradshaw: Although the Government say that they want to devote a greater proportion of overall health spending to primary care, our Health Committee’s report on primary care, published in the summer, showed that a smaller proportion was being devoted to the primary care sector, which, of course, includes pharmacies.  Is that not the ultimate false economy? If we do not invest more in primary care, all the pressure goes into the acute sector.

Jon Ashworth: My right hon. Friend is another experienced former Health Minister, and he is right. As we learnt this week, the Health Committee has completely blown apart the Government’s figures on the financing of the NHS.

Andrew Murrison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jon Ashworth: If I may, I shall make some progress. I promise to give way to the hon. Gentleman in a few moments, but I know that others wish to speak.
The Government will say that they are mitigating the cuts by introducing a pharmacy access scheme, but the scheme takes no account of the needs of the most deprived communities. The four constituencies that top the health deprivation and disability indices are Liverpool Walton, Blackpool South, Manchester Central and Blackley and Broughton. Not one pharmacy in those constituencies is eligible for the pharmacy access scheme. The least deprived constituencies are Chesham and Amersham and Wokingham. In Chesham and Amersham, 28% of pharmacies are eligible for this mitigating scheme, while in Wokingham 35% are eligible. [Interruption.] The Minister says that it is a disgrace, but those are the figures. Only this Department, which spins figures all the time and which has been discredited for the way in which it uses them, can call a pharmacy cuts package an “access scheme”.
Today, in an article in The Times, the Minister himself focuses on cities such as Leicester and Birmingham. He claims that if you walk
“along roads in Leicester you will see 12 pharmacies within ten minutes of each other”.
As the Member of Parliament for Leicester South, I walk along roads in Leicester every day. I do not know whether the Minister has actually walked along any of those roads; he has never told me that he has. Let me therefore extend an invitation to him to come to Leicester, where he will see numerous community pharmacists in areas with a high proportion of black and ethnic-minority communities providing specialist services for families who have relied on them for 20 or 30 years, often dealing with elderly people and speaking to them in Gujarati, Urdu and Punjabi. Many of those people will have to go to GPs’ surgeries and A & E departments if the pharmacies are closed. The Government’s assessment takes no account of the disproportionate effect that the cuts will have on black and ethnic minority communities in cities such as Leicester and Birmingham.

Andrew Murrison: rose—

Robert Jenrick: rose—

Jon Ashworth: I will give way to the hon. Member for Newark.

Robert Jenrick: Will the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that we all support community pharmacies? The town I live in has 3,500 residents and there are four pharmacies within a quarter of a mile. Will he at least acknowledge that a model that gives a block grant of £25,000 to each of those pharmacies purely for establishing themselves regardless of demand obviously needs review?

Jon Ashworth: If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell his constituents he is in favour of closing pharmacies, good luck to him.
Of course it is not just pharmacy closures that we will see. The National Pharmacy Association has reported today that that 81% of community pharmacies will have to restrict services that help elderly people and 86% will have to restrict free services such as delivering medicine to housebound patients. Does that not confirm that the elderly and the most vulnerable will be hit the hardest by the cuts to community pharmacies, and the Government are entirely to blame?

Andrew Murrison: rose—

Jon Ashworth: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been very patient.

Andrew Murrison: Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that we have to get the most efficiencies we possibly can from the system? His party colleague the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton) made a serious point about engaging with pharmacies to see how we can do it better. Does he agree—I would be interested to know why this is not in his motion—that category M clawbacks, which are levied exclusively on small independent pharmacies, might be extended to vertically integrated wholesalers as a way of making sure the system is more efficient than at present?

Jon Ashworth: The hon. Gentleman talks of efficiencies; he will presumably have seen the research that says if people cannot get to a pharmacy one in four will go to a GP. We will see greater demand on GP surgeries and A&E departments. That is not efficient. It is a false economy, which is why the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee has said the proposals are
“founded on ignorance of the value of pharmacies to local communities, to the NHS, and to social care, and will do great damage to all three. We cannot accept them.”
It is why the chief executive of Pharmacy Voice described the decision as
“incoherent, self-defeating and wholly unacceptable”,
and it is why charities such as Age UK have said the plans are
“out of step with messages encouraging people to make more use of their community pharmacists, to relieve pressure on overstretched A&E departments and GP surgeries.”
Age UK has hit the nail on the head: these cuts to community pharmacies completely contradict everything we have been told by Ministers over recent years and will lead to increased pressures and increased demands on GP surgeries and A&E departments.

Luciana Berger: My hon. Friend has made some crucial points about how the funding has been allocated across our country. There are 129 community pharmacies across the whole of Liverpool, yet just two of them will be eligible for this payment. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is absolutely outrageous and will impact on the entire population of Liverpool?

Jon Ashworth: My hon. Friend is right and even after this scheme is in place pharmacists who are eligible for the mitigating funds are still saying that they will have to close despite them.
We believe in the importance of community pharmacies, because
“pharmacies have a big role to play in this, as one in 11 or 12 A and E appointments could be dealt with at a pharmacy”—[Official Report, 25 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 162.]—
and:
“Pharmacies have an important role to play, because they could save a significant number of A and E and GP visits.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 1049.]
Those are not my words: they are the words of the Health Secretary, said from that Dispatch Box over the last two years.
If the message the Health Secretary has been giving at that Dispatch Box is that community pharmacies are a way of relieving pressure on A&Es and GP surgeries, why is he now coming to the House to support cutting community pharmacies? It is a complete false economy. I will give way if he wants to explain that. He does not, probably because he knows it is a completely false economy.

Neil Coyle: Arundhati Patel runs the Jamaica Road pharmacy in my constituency and an alcohol cessation service is one of the services it provides to the local community. He pointed out there were 1,400 hospital stays in Southwark due to alcohol harm. On the point about efficiencies and avoiding visits to hospital that Members have talked about, is this not another example of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) called a false economy?

Jon Ashworth: My hon. Friend is right, and Government Ministers, including the Health Secretary even on Monday, justify these as part of a package of efficiencies. Indeed when I raised this a few months ago with the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, he told me in correspondence that these cuts were necessary as part of delivering the £22 billion-worth of efficiency savings. So this is more proof that when they talk of efficiency savings, they are actually talking of cuts to frontline services.

Huw Merriman: rose—

Jon Ashworth: I am sorry, but I need to make progress.
The NHS is going through the worst financial crisis in its 68-year history. Even the previous Health Secretary, who is now in the other place, said he did not expect another five years of such tight budgets for the NHS.
The black hole in hospital finances last year was £2.45 billion. Under Labour, we spent the European average on health as a proportion of GDP; we are now spending less than Greece. We are seeing a huge financial squeeze on the NHS and the cuts are part of that squeeze agenda.
We want the Government to think again on the cuts, because they will lead to more pressures on GP surgeries and A&E departments. There is a consensus not just among the Labour party, but among our constituents, the sector, clinicians and indeed Conservative Members  against the cuts. It is Ministers who stand outside that consensus. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) has said:
“It does not make sense that we are encouraging pharmacies to take on a bigger role in the NHS, while potentially reducing the number of them.”
The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) has said:
“I do not think this 4% cut is a wise move.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 974.]
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) said
“when our A&Es are under so much pressure, we need community pharmacies”.—[Official Report, 17 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 598.]
I agree and our message to Conservative Members who want to stand up for their constituents and who have been lobbied by pharmacists is, “Join us in the Division Lobbies and get Ministers to think again on these damaging cuts.” I commend the motion to the House.

David Mowat: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “NHS services” to the end of the Question and add:
“welcomes the Government’s proposals to further integrate community pharmacy into the NHS, including through the Pharmacy Integration Fund, and make better use of pharmacists’ clinical expertise, including investing £112 million to deliver a further 1,500 pharmacists in general practice by 2020; supports the need to reform the funding system to ensure better value for the taxpayer; and welcomes the establishment of a Pharmacy Access Scheme which will ensure all patients in all parts of the country continue to enjoy good access to a local community pharmacy.”.
I welcome the opportunity to set out again the Government’s approach to pharmacy in general and community pharmacy in particular over the next few years. I will also address some of the points that we just heard, which were, frankly, alarmist scare-mongering.
The proposals I announced two weeks ago are directed at four main areas: first, the need to better integrate pharmacy with GPs, primary care and the NHS more widely; secondly, the need for the existing community pharmacy network to move from a dispensing-based model to a value-added services-based model; thirdly, the need to continue to work with NHS England to ensure value for every penny we spend on the NHS; and fourthly, the need to ensure that, as we undertake these reforms, everybody in the country continues to have ready access to a community pharmacy.
First, on integration with the NHS, especially in general practice, over the weekend Simon Stevens, the NHS England chief executive, again reiterated the importance of that and why he supports this process. We know we need to expand the number of GPs, and by 2020 we will have a further 5,000 doctors working in this area, but as well as recruiting and retaining more doctors, we need to provide them with further support. The “General Practice Forward View”, published by NHS England, has set out fully costed plans to recruit a further 1,500 clinical pharmacists into GP practices by 2020. By then there will be one pharmacist working within a GP practice for every 30,000 of population. Most of these will be prescribing pharmacists, and all  will have a role in performing medicine reviews and leveraging GP time. This is a major investment and it is already happening.

Huw Merriman: The point I wanted to make when trying to intervene on the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) was that I recently went to a pharmacy in my town of Bexhill, and it is making deliveries to every single customer who asks for a delivery, not just the vulnerable and the elderly. It does so because if it did not Lloyds would put it out of business. Does the Minister agree that that shows that there are efficiencies to be made, and the fact that those efficiencies are recycled in the health service has got to be good for all our constituents?

David Mowat: It does show that. This is a competitive business. My hon. Friend mentions Lloyds; it is one of the two big players in this industry, in which two players own 30% of all pharmacies.

Graham Jones: The Minister talks about moving away from a dispensing model to a value-added model. I shall say something about healthy living if I get the opportunity to speak in the debate, but in relation to that shift, what is his view on warehouse pharmacies?

David Mowat: Our view on the structure of the industry is that it is up to individual companies within the sector to organise themselves and to provide their services as efficiently as possible. It is true that 70% of all pharmacies are either chains, multiples or public companies, and I will address that point later.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Mowat: I want to make some progress.
Secondly, we want to see an enhanced role for the community pharmacy network in providing value-added services. This is an aspiration that we share with the network and its representatives. To that end, NHS England has commissioned Richard Murray of the King’s Fund to produce an evidence-based report to determine which types of primary care services are best done by pharmacists over the next two or three years. The report, which will be published later this year, will inform NHS England’s decisions on how to use the integration fund of £42 million that I announced two weeks ago. There are many candidate areas, including long-term conditions, minor ailments, better care home support and more medicine reviews, as well as the work that pharmacists do in public health.

Maria Eagle: Many of the pharmacies in my constituency already provide such services, but they are now threatened by the Government’s proposals. Does the Minister not realise that, according to research carried out by Pharmacy Voice, in a constituency such as mine, which is No. 20 on the list of deprived areas, four in five people who cannot see a pharmacist will end up going to their GP? Does he not agree that that will achieve exactly the opposite of what he wants?

David Mowat: The impact review, which was published at the same time as my statement two weeks ago, estimated that the amount of extra time that people  would have to spend going to a pharmacy would be a matter of seconds, even if we had, say, 100 closures. The impact review sets that out in some detail. Did someone sitting behind me wish to intervene?

John Bercow: Perhaps the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) could detach himself from his device for a matter of seconds. It is very good of him to drop in on us and to take a continuing interest in our proceedings. They certainly interested him greatly a few seconds ago.

Oliver Colvile: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was just trying to find something that was going to inform my intervention. Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that in Devon, about £5.5 million is wasted on unused medicines? We need to do something about that.

David Mowat: I do realise that, and I mentioned the fact that the King’s Fund is looking into medicine reviews.
As I have said before in the Chamber, the model that is adopted for pharmacies in Scotland has a lot to commend it, even though we might not adopt it in its entirety. I hope that we will get a chance to discuss that later.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Mowat: Before I give way, I should like to quote the chief pharmacist himself. Dr Keith Ridge has confirmed that the review
“will support community pharmacy to develop new clinical pharmacy services, working practices and online support to meet the public’s expectations for a modern NHS.”
Two weeks ago, I announced two initiatives that will proceed in advance of the King’s Fund report. From 1 December, phone calls made to NHS 111 for urgent repeat prescriptions will be directed not to an out-of-hours GP service as at present but to a community pharmacy. This will amount to some 200,000 calls a year, resulting in further revenue streams, for the consultations and for supplying the medicine. NHS England has also committed to encouraging national coverage of a locally commissioned NHS minor ailments service. Some areas, including West Yorkshire, already do this, and we will roll it out to the whole country by April 2018. Both those initiatives will relieve pressure on surgeries and emergency care centres. Both will result in additional incremental revenue for pharmacies, but they are very much only the start.

Norman Lamb: Does the Minister accept the view expressed in the impact assessment that independent pharmacies, which are often micro-businesses, and small chains of up to 20 pharmacies will be at a higher risk of closure than the larger chains?

David Mowat: In terms of these proposals, we have to be blind to the ownership of pharmacies. The fact is that the average pharmacy sells for something like £750,000. I do not accept that the proposals will cause closures in those segments, if that was the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s question.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Mowat: I want to continue.
The third area I wish to address is value for money, and I make no apology for doing this. According to recent OECD analysis, the UK now spends above the OECD average on healthcare, but however much money we spend, every penny needs to be spent as efficiently as possible. If that does not happen, waiting lists can become too long, treatments can be denied to patients and drugs might not be available. We also know that efficiency savings are required of every part of the NHS, and community pharmacy must play a role in contributing to the £22 billion of savings that we need to find. I do not apologise for that.

Andrew Murrison: I certainly support the amendment on the Order Paper today, but does the Minister agree that, in relation to efficiencies, the issue of category M clawback is an important one? I tried to extract an answer to that question from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) earlier. Also, I ask the Minister to think again about the ownership-blind point that he just made. There is not an equal playing field at the moment, and there is a real risk that small independent pharmacies will continue to be done in.

David Mowat: I do accept that point. We are working on the category M clawback, and I hope to be able to make some progress on that matter soon.

Claire Perry: If anybody can square this circle, it is the Minister, given his extensive experience in this area. I genuinely believe that we have to sort out this issue. I am not happy to subsidise large private companies through the system—some of the chains have already been mentioned—so it is right to look at where the clusters occur. The Minister is well aware of the Kennet pharmacy in my constituency, and we all have really value-added pharmacies that are doing very valuable work. How can we help him, over the review period, to identify and support the services that those pharmacies provide? They must not be allowed to close as a result of this policy.

David Mowat: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have set out the work that we are doing, and the fact that we are providing more money for services, over and above all the money involved in the cuts and efficiency savings that we have had to make, will help that process.

Sarah Wollaston: Further to that point, the Minister knows that our pharmacists are a highly skilled and professional resource that has long been underused in the NHS. He has mentioned the ongoing Murray review, and a sustainability and transformation plan process is also going on around the country. My concern is that the closures will come about in a random way, rather than through a planned process based on identifying skills in particular areas. Will he consider delaying them until we have all the reports in place and we can consider the matter on an area-by-area basis?

David Mowat: The access scheme is the device that will ensure that pharmacies are not closed in a random way. I want to address the point about closures head on. It is my belief that there will be a minimal amount of closures. The impact analysis talks about 100 and it  models 100. The average pharmacy has a margin of 15%, and the amount of efficiency savings that we are asking pharmacies to make over two years is 7%. In addition, the average pharmacy is trading for £750,000 when it closes or merges, even after we announced these efficiency savings a year ago. That value is being retained.

Jon Ashworth: The previous Minister put a figure on this. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he means by a “minimal” number of closures? What is the number?

David Mowat: These are private businesses, each with a different business model and a different amount of income from the NHS, from other retail activities and from services. Each is financed in a different way. Indeed, 30% of them are owned by two public companies, and 70% of them are multiples.

Victoria Borwick: Can reassurance be given that local pharmacies are the frontline of primary care? Will the Minister extend the work and responsibility of those local pharmacies, particularly in deprived areas, and reassure us that that is the focus of this debate?

David Mowat: I spoke to 500 pharmacists this morning and gave them that precise reassurance. The changes that we are making to transform the sector into a service-based, not dispensing-based, economy will do just that. That is where pharmacies need to go and it is where they want to go. Frankly, it has taken too long.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Mowat: I need to make some progress. I will give way in a moment.
At present, the average pharmacy receives NHS income of £220,000 a year, which is based on throughput of £1 million from the NHS. That translates into a value  of the order of £750,000 for each pharmacy. When pharmacies merge or are sold, that is what they are traded for and the changes will not make a significant difference.
Returning to an earlier point, 40% of all pharmacies are located within a 10-minute walk of at least two others. Instances exist of a dozen or more pharmacies located within half a mile of each other. As I noted earlier, each one will most likely be receiving £25,000 a year just for being there.

Jon Ashworth: Has the Minister been to Leicester?

David Mowat: I was brought up on the outskirts of Leicester, so I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have indeed been there. Giving all these clusters £25,000 of national health service money is not the best way to spend precious resources.
In addition, the extra services that pharmacies will choose to provide, such as winter flu jabs and public health services, are commissioned separately and will be unaffected by the reset. For example, 600,000 flu jabs have been given in community pharmacies this year—more than all of last winter.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Mowat: I need to make progress.

John Bercow: Order. I think it is fair to say that the Minister is being what I would call—if it does not sound a contradiction in terms—courteously harangued to give way, but it is perfectly evident to me that he is not giving way at the moment. Members will therefore have to exercise their judgment as to the frequency with which they make further attempts.

David Mowat: I will continue to make some progress and then give way towards the end of my remarks.
I do not want to downplay the impact of the change on the private businesses that own and operate the network. The pharmacy sector is a mixed economy with 70% of the market made up of multiples and chains and 30% owned by independents. It is hard to accurately predict the impact of the changes on those individual business models. What I can say, however, is that the savings we are making will be entirely recycled back into the NHS. Every penny of the efficiency savings that we are asking of community pharmacies will be spent on better patient care, better drugs and better GP access.

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I totally understand the importance of trying to get as much bang for your buck from pharmacy services, but does this not actually amount to a significant cut in spending on preventive services? That seems completely counter to the Government’s aim.

David Mowat: When one takes into account the £112 million that we are spending on getting more pharmacists into GP practices, the right hon. Gentleman’s point is incorrect.

Luciana Berger: Will the Minister give way?

David Mowat: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
Finally, I want to talk about the work that we are doing to ensure that everyone in the country has access to a community pharmacy. We have developed a scheme with two components. First, all pharmacies that are more than 1 mile from another pharmacy will be eligible for additional funding, which will almost entirely mitigate the impact of the changes. That component is specifically designed to protect areas where current provision is quite spread out. In total, it will apply to around 1,400 locations—roughly half urban and half rural. Pharmacies that are in the highest 25% by prescription volume, and therefore most profitable, will not be eligible for the scheme. Secondly, there is a near-miss scheme under which pharmacies that are located up to 0.8 miles from each other and in the 20% most deprived areas in the country can apply to be reviewed by NHS England as a special case. The final safeguard is that NHS England has a continuing duty to ensure the adequate provision of services. Its role is to commission a new pharmacy in any area where it believes access is inadequate. That duty will continue.

Luciana Berger: I thank the Minister for very kindly giving way. Will he correct the record on something? Pharmacies are not all private enterprises. Many co-operatives across our country provide community pharmacies, often in rural and isolated areas. For the  purposes of this debate, will he clarify his understanding of the distinction between a community pharmacy and a GP pharmacy? That has not been clear in his remarks so far.

David Mowat: The distinction is that a community pharmacy is part of a privately owned business that dispenses and is paid in that way. The ones that we are hiring into GP practices will leverage GP time and do medicine reviews, and I expect them to enable the pharmacy network in an area to work more cohesively. It is a welcome and, frankly, overdue step forward.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Mowat: I need to continue.
Taken as a whole, I am confident that the three measures I have talked about for protecting access will ensure that everyone has access to a community pharmacy in much the same way as they do at present. The future for pharmacy is bright. The change we are implementing of a 7.4% efficiency requirement over two years is proportionate and will continue to orientate the profession towards services and—for the first time—quality and away from a remuneration model based on dispensing.
I will finish by again quoting the chief pharmacist, who said:
“The public can be reassured that while efficiencies are being asked of community pharmacy just as they are of other parts of the NHS, there is still sufficient funding to ensure there are accessible and convenient local NHS pharmacy services across England. The NHS is committed to a positive future for pharmacists and community pharmacy.”
Every penny that we save as a result of the efficiency reviews will be spent within the NHS on better care, better drugs and on quicker treatment. I urge Members to support the amendment later today.

Philippa Whitford: The Minister kindly referred to the system in Scotland, which has been running for 10 years since we passed the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005. It took time to introduce the new system, but now all pharmacies in Scotland are community pharmacies, meaning that they all provide services. They do not get a big payment merely for existing—they receive a quite tiny £1,730—but they do get payments based on needs that reflect a population’s age, vulnerability and deprivation, so those things are taken into account in their global funding. That funding is due to go up 1.2% in Scotland while there is talk of a reduction of 4% here.
The services provided have been referred to as the minor ailment scheme. Many pharmacies in England make provision under that scheme, but it is not a national system. In Scotland, the scheme is national and such services must be provided. One issue is that the pharmacies have to invest. They have to build a consulting room and change their building so that people can be seen privately when their minor ailment is diagnosed. They work to protocol for a whole list of ailments that they can diagnose and have the ability to treat. The ailments are minor things that many people would experience, and the approach avoids their having to go a GP.

Steve Pound: The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point. People who go into a community pharmacy today will see a special treatment room where they can get phlebotomy, advice on blood pressure and all sorts of other things. Is it not perverse, cruel and utterly irrational to say to a group of professionals, who have done all this work to change the way they deliver their services, “Now we are finished with you. Out you go. You’ve done your bit. We are going to put you out and close down your pharmacy”?

Philippa Whitford: I agree with the Government about looking for more services, but this is not the way to work with the profession, given that they want those in it to do more work and to work differently. Sadly, during my time in the House, we have repeatedly seen the Government not sitting down with a profession and saying, “Why not look for where savings can be made?”, but simply making a cut.

Karin Smyth: I was going to intervene on the Minister to follow up the point made by the Chair of the Health Committee. We are looking at bottom-up planning in England for the first time for a number of years with the sustainability and transformation plan process, so this is completely the wrong time to be making these irrational and random cuts.

Philippa Whitford: We recently debated STPs and the potential they provide. The danger is that at the moment we are seeing finance-centred care, instead of patient-centred care. Going back to place-based planning, which is what we have kept in Scotland, where we still have health boards, means that we can look at integrating services, and pharmacies definitely need to be part of that. They have the potential to be a significant front-line player.

Maria Caulfield: I am interested in the experience in Scotland, although we do not have the same system in England. What does the hon. Lady think about moving pharmacists into GP surgeries? I think that it is a mistake. I would much prefer the approach that is being taken in Scotland, where pharmacies are expanding by having consulting rooms of their own.

Philippa Whitford: Scotland actually has both. We do have pharmacists who are in a consulting room within a practice, and our Government have put £85 million into taking on an additional 140 pharmacists who work in primary care with GPs. We are not, as has been done in the past, saying, “Everyone on drug A must change to drug B because it is cheaper,” without giving any thought to how that affects the patient. We are consulting patients, who are often on 10 or 15 medications, all of which interact and have different side effects, and then rationalising that and giving the patient advice. We are therefore providing a clinical service rather than just a changeover service.
Our community pharmacy system has been running for 10 years, so it is quite mature. Patients register with a pharmacist in the same way as they register with a GP. The aim is for all people to be registered with whomever they consider their local pharmacist to be, as that means that they can access minor ailment treatment. It also means that people who are on chronic medication  have a chronic medication service, with their prescription sent electronically to the pharmacy, which then keeps track on when it is due and therefore ensures that patients do not run out of medication. The pharmacies also provides an acute medication service for people who have not signed up to the other service but suddenly find they have no tablets, as they had not thought to re-order them with their GP. If they are regulars at the pharmacy, a single round of drugs can be prescribed for them there so that they do not have a gap in their treatment. The important thing is that our vision is to have all our pharmacists as prescribers by 2023, and to have our public registered with pharmacists by 2020.

Jim Cunningham: The hon. Lady makes two important points: this move is cuts-led, rather than well planned; and just as communities rely on their doctor, they rely on the facilities at their pharmacy. That is particularly true of elderly people and those with disabilities, who may have to travel miles, depending on where the pharmacy is.

Philippa Whitford: It is crucial that the service covers all areas, including those that are deprived and those that do not have good public transport. Distance is not everything; this is also about how people travel that distance. In many places, the distance involved might not be that great, but there simply may not be a bus going in the required direction.

Catherine McKinnell: I wanted to make this point to the Minister: the closure of community pharmacies will clearly lead to a poorer service, a loss of patient choice and poorer health outcomes for those in more deprived parts of the country. Is this not just another example of Government short-term cuts that will cost us more in the long term?

Philippa Whitford: If this is introduced badly, the cost will be greater in the long term. When the Minister talks about a more service-based approach, I think that he aspires to something more like the Scottish model, which I would commend. I just feel that this is being done “backside forward”.

Anna Turley: rose—

Philippa Whitford: I need to make a bit of progress.
We need to design the services with the people who work in them. Some 18% of Scotland’s population—nearly 1 million people—are registered with and do access the minor ailment service, which takes pressure off accident and emergency, because there is availability out of hours, and GPs. The fourth service that we have is the public health service, with 70% of all smoking cessation work in primary care being carried out in our community pharmacies. These four services together—minor ailments, chronic medication, acute medication and public health—represent a huge breadth of service for a community. It is important that pharmacies in England that are currently just retail and dispensing pharmacies are encouraged to go in that direction, because it brings benefit for the NHS.
My biggest concern is the random nature of how this process might develop. If the Government simply cut and let the dice fall where they will, the problem is that  they will not end up with an integrated service. Scotland still has health boards, so if a community pharmacy is to open there, an application needs to be made to the health board. When the project started, the boards decided which places got to become community pharmacies, and they decide whether there is a need to open a new community pharmacy. The biggest mistake in this scheme is its randomness.
One issue raised by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) was the profits made when drugs are sold on. The Government could look at the vertically integrated wholesalers—the big chains. In the mid-2000s, they were not considered. The Government do not know how much profit they make or where that profit is made, and the system is totally unregulated. These chains control about 40% of the pharmacy market. One of the biggest chains, Walgreens Boots Alliance, has declared profits of almost £1 billion, yet it has somehow been able to reduce its tax bill by more than £1 billion in this country. We are talking about people who are make almost half their profit from taxpayers yet do not pay their full share of tax. I absolutely agree that under this proposal the big chains will survive and the small, independent, very community-based pharmacies will be lost.

Neil Coyle: The Minister accused those who highlight concerns of “scaremongering”. Atul, who runs St George’s pharmacy at the Elephant and Castle in my constituency, says:
“We may survive the first set of”—
in-year—
“cuts by compromising on our services. But the second set of cuts next April will most definitely place us at a real risk of closure.”
Does the hon. Lady agree with Atul that it is right for us to highlight our concerns, especially in constituencies such as mine, where we face losing 18 community pharmacies?

Philippa Whitford: Losing that many pharmacies in any area would be a disaster. This is a bit like groundhog day, because this is our third discussion on this topic in as many weeks. The Minister said that there absolutely would be protection, but the pharmacy access scheme still largely comes down to the amount of dispensing that is done and the distances. It does not take account of which pharmacies are providing a good service, which ones are set up to provide a good service and how to encourage others to develop. This is what is completely wrong in the Government’s approach. They are just slicing money off and leaving individual businesses to decide whether they think they will be profitable. The danger would be that we get a whole lot of pharmacies deciding to sell out and walk, instead of someone saying for a particular area, “Eighteen is too many”—especially if they are all around one town square—“so which ones are best able to develop a service? Let them bid for it and let them be inspected, and let’s see how they take it forward.”
The Government could make a lot of savings by addressing the wholesalers. In Scotland, we have margin sharing, which means that a price control group looks at the profit that is made at various stages, and some of it has to be shared back. We do have people who are trading on the open market and moving drugs around, especially in the big chains. As we heard earlier, we  would get a better result by sitting down with the profession and designing a service. STPs could provide the model within which to look at how many community pharmacies there should be and where they should be, and then it would be a case of working backwards.
The danger of the Government’s approach is that it is the wrong way round. Just calling something an “efficiency cut” does not make it efficient, and the danger is that we just slash something and it falls over. The pharmacy access scheme is not enough of a protection or of an intervention. There needs to be planning. I commend the idea of a proper services-based pharmacy system, but the aspiration should be not just that a few pharmacies choose to do it and others do not. It should be that a patient who walks into a community pharmacy will know what services they can get, and we should aim to have that right across the country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me say that there will be a limit of five minutes on Back-Bench speeches. There are 25 people who are trying to take part in this debate, so it may be necessary to drop down that time a bit further later on, but let us start with five minutes.

Anne Main: It is a shame that the Front-Bench speakers took so long because many colleagues want to contribute to the debate.
I agree with the Minister’s thrust of ensuring that we get the greatest efficiency for the taxpayer and the best possible health service for our constituents. We cannot afford to waste money in any way, shape or form, but if we can find ways to redirect money into NHS front-line services, I agree that we should do so. As the Minister said, the NHS chief pharmacist has been very clear throughout the consultation that the current way in which community pharmacy is paid and organised needs to be reformed, so it is right that we should look at it.
The NHS is labouring under huge financial pressures, so we should look at any areas in which inefficiencies or duplications lead to precious resources being distributed inefficiently. The public want the money that could be saved through this measure to be reinvested in front-line NHS services. I am glad that the Minister has taken the opportunity to reassure us about that.
My own West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust struggles under a massive deficit that has been growing year on year. Its latest financial report revealed that it had a revenue deficit of £41.2 million by 2015-16. We cannot fail to tackle the huge financial pressures on the NHS, but just throwing money at the problem will never be enough if we do not seek to tackle the system at the same time. Surely the Opposition cannot be asserting that these matters should never be looked into. Their manifesto pledged £6 billion less than this Government have committed, so I am really intrigued to know how on earth they would keep this system in its entirety and, at the same time, put more money into NHS services, which is what I would like to happen.
I, like many, want the biggest bang for the taxpayer’s buck. I want the Health Minister to succeed in his aim of delivering the very best pharmacy service, with facilities that help to keep patients out of A&E and doctors’  surgeries and, at the same time, promote good health within communities. I agree that it is important to integrate community pharmacies into the NHS urgent care system and GP services.
I welcomed the Government’s announcement in October that the pharmacy integration fund will provide up to £42 million
“to improve on how pharmacists, their teams and community pharmacy operates within the NHS as a whole.”
If we are looking at an establishment payment of £25,000 to pharmacies, we must ensure that we get the right result. When it comes to the closure of small pharmacies, we must protect residents who live in more rural or sparsely populated areas, as well as those who do not have access to cars. The Minister has said that the existing funding system does not do enough to promote efficiency and quality, or to promote integration with the rest of the NHS. He has also said that in most cases the NHS is giving each of these pharmacies a guaranteed fixed payment of £25,000 per year regardless of their size, quality or local demand, and that in total the average pharmacy receives nearly £1 million for the NHS goods and services that it provides, of which around £220,000 is direct income.
Our pharmacy provision varies greatly across the country. The Quadrant pharmacy in St Albans, which I am due to visit on Friday, is situated in a small parade of shops and provides a valued local service. Other pharmacies are located as concessions in huge supermarkets such as Sainsbury’s in London Colney, which have the added attraction of longer opening hours, a large car park, being surrounded by other out-of-town superstores, and a huge footfall of shoppers who can get their prescriptions along with the dog food and Sunday roast. As many concessions are operated by the bigger chains, such as LloydsPharmacy, we must ensure that they do not extinguish the light of the smaller pharmacy that also operates in London Colney, just around the corner from the doctor’s surgery. It is important that we get this right.
I accept that there is an inefficient allocation of NHS funds when Government figures show that 40% of pharmacies are now in clusters of three or more. That means that two fifths are within 10 minutes’ walk of two or more other pharmacies, and I know that that is the case in certain areas of my own constituency. In the St Albans high street shopping area, there are five dispensing pharmacies within a half-mile area. Some are just over the road from each other, some have only yards between them, and some are also operating fairly near to that tightly packed city zone. That cannot be a good idea. St Albans is certainly very well served by pharmacies—not surprisingly St Albans is also the home of the National Pharmacy Association.
It is important that we look at the proposal on offer, but we must get this right. I hope that quality can be provided, that nobody is left behind when pharmacy services are streamlined, and that everyone has access to good services.

Kevin Barron: I should say that I am chair of the all-party pharmacy group. I am sure that many of my colleagues will today talk about the  savings and services that community pharmacies provide to the national health service. Although that is an important point, it is also essential that we highlight the good that they provide to patients. They do so much more than just deliver prescriptions to people. Let me just highlight the scale of their operations. Some 11,800 community pharmacies dispensed more than 1 billion prescription items in 2015.
Community pharmacists are well prepared to adapt to many different problem with which they are presented. They help people to give up smoking, alter their diets, become healthier and manage their cholesterol. Effectively, they are on the frontline as far as the health of the public is concerned.

Anna Turley: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Pharmacies are right at the heart of their communities. As has already been mentioned today, access to those services is vital. In some areas—such as our two constituencies—bus services are being cut and people are finding it increasingly difficult to access services. It is nonsense for the Minister to say that it is a matter of seconds between pharmacies. Will my right hon. Friend comment on how important access to pharmacies is to our communities?

Kevin Barron: It is very important, and the mechanism that has been put in place will not solve everything. We may get Boots in Gatwick airport supporting it, but there is the potential that others may drop off the line because they are just outside the geographical area. We need to look at that.
Let me turn to population health. This cannot be done by central distribution centres or a pharmacy based miles away, as they have no link with the locality. I am pleased that the idea of major companies getting involved in prescribing has been dropped. Pharmacists know their customers well and are familiar with their medications and, consequently, the customers feel confident in asking them for their advice.
The Government’s figures show that the £170 million cut could force up to 3,000 community pharmacies—one in four across the country—to close their doors to the public, so people would have to travel a lot further to their pharmacist and not have the local connection that I mentioned previously. Community pharmacy is the gateway to health for some 1.6 million patients each day. If anything, that is something on which we need to get a grip.
A core component of current pharmacy services supports the public to stay well, live healthier lives and self-care. Pharmacists play a central role in the management of long-term conditions. They carry out medicines use reviews, for example. We must remember that more than 70% of expenditure on our national health service at both primary and acute level is spent on people with long-term conditions. There could not be a better gateway for those people to get the assistance they need to manage those conditions than through local pharmacies.

Nicholas Dakin: My right hon. Friend is right. Community pharmacies are at the heart of the gateway. Does he agree that there is a danger that the proposed cuts might end up costing more money than they save?

Kevin Barron: That is a danger. We do not know what is going to happen.
Community pharmacies attract patients who will not access health care anywhere else. People greatly value the fact that they do not need an appointment at a pharmacy. The long opening hours, too, are appealing. People from deprived populations who may not access conventional NHS services do access community pharmacies, which helps to improve the health of the local population and to reduce health inequalities.
I know that there is some weighting of the figures in relation to the assessment scheme. We need to see how that will work. I hope that we will take into account that where there are higher levels of deprivation, large numbers of pharmacies might not be inconsistent with need.
I was contacted by a pharmacist in my constituency to highlight two examples from the past week that showed the vital role of a local community pharmacy. In the first example, a 34-year-old lady with epilepsy had run out of her essential medication, owing to a visit lasting longer than she had anticipated. She went along to the local walk-in centre but was denied a supply because of the lack of prescription evidence. As we all know, records are not as joined-up as they should be. The lady then visited her local pharmacy, which, thanks to local record access, was able to determine that her request was genuine and gave her a short-term supply. A lengthy and stressful visit to A&E was therefore avoided and the risk of potentially harmful seizures was averted as well.
In the second example, the pharmacist described spending 45 minutes with the parents of a one-year-old late on Wednesday evening, helping to administer soluble prednisolone for severe croup. The fact that the pharmacist was able to spend that time with the family got the job done, and again an A&E visit was avoided.
The difficulty in collecting such examples is that so many pharmacists see this simply as what they do, rather than as great examples of care for patients. They do not moan about it, worry about whether they get paid to do it or pass the buck; they just deal with the situation and improve patient care for the individual in front of them.
As well as providing extra services, community pharmacies are taking on more of the clinical roles that have traditionally been undertaken by doctors, such as the management of asthma and diabetes and blood pressure testing. That should be welcomed, as it reduces the pressure on GPs. It is usually so much easier for people to visit their local pharmacy for these services than to wait at their GP’s surgery. Because of the greater amount of time that they can spend with each patient, community pharmacists can respond to patients’ symptoms and advise on medicines that have been prescribed or are for sale in pharmacies.
The public support for local pharmacies and the services that they provide is huge. I was one of a number of Members from both sides of the House who presented a petition to No.10 a few weeks ago that now has some 2.2 million signatures. It is the biggest health petition that we have ever had here in the UK.
I shall finish with a quote from a pharmacist in Rotherham, who said, “I do what I do to make a positive difference to patients’ health and wellbeing every single day. How many things would I be able to pick up post-cuts? Probably not as many, as we will have  to cut back on staff and I won’t have as much patient-facing time.” The all-party group will be looking at the proposals. I do not say that we should move away from a dispensing model, but we need reassurance that any move will not affect our community pharmacies and patients’ needs.

Alistair Burt: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron), who runs the all-party parliamentary group extremely well. I agree with much of what he says about the value of community pharmacy.
I start my brief remarks by thanking the people I was involved with in pharmacy for their immense courtesy at all times, even though we were talking about some very difficult things. Those people included my local pharmacists, Arif and Raj in Wootton; Graham Phillips of Harpenden, who spent a large amount of time showing me his shops and is still very engaged with me; those on Bedford local pharmaceutical committee, who invited me at a most difficult time to launch their healthy living pharmacies in the area; and of course my team in the Department of Health.
Instead of repeating the Minister’s statement and his commitment to pharmacy, I shall say a little about why we are where we are and what I found when I was dealing with pharmacy, and look ahead to the future. This is the sort of debate where the previous Minister finds that, owing to pressing parliamentary business, he is not able to attend the debate and he is somewhere else because all this is now nothing to do with him, guv. I thought that would be most unfair and I wanted to be here to support my hon. Friend and to give a little background.
The process started with the settlement made in 2015 between the Department of Health and the Treasury. In that settlement, extra money was released for the NHS, particularly in my portfolio—adult social care, mental health and primary care—but as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) in speaking for the Opposition, efficiency cuts were required throughout the NHS, as advocated by Simon Stevens. Part of that involved £170 million off the £2.8 billion for pharmacy. I thought that this was appropriate and that, once it was announced, we could work through it.
I regret the 3,000 figure that I gave to the right hon. Member for Rother Valley at a meeting with the APPG. It was a worst-case estimate, taking no account of what changes pharmacies might make to accommodate any reductions in finance, and therefore it was absolutely top-end. The reason that I gave it in conversation with colleagues—it was open and public and I have no objection to the figure being used—was to indicate that I was aware of the difficulty and that we wanted to work very hard to mitigate it, which we then started to do. But the 3,000 figure took on a life of its own. With hindsight, it might have been wiser if I had stuck to exactly what the Minister says, which is that we do not know because the Government do not have a plan to close pharmacies. They are not in a position to do that and we do not know what will happen.
I do not believe for an instant that the outcome will be as dramatic as Opposition Members have suggested, because businesses do adapt. One of the things that I found when I arrived, as several Members have said, is  that 18% growth had taken place in 10 years. Pharmacies are a business and pharmacists will make adaptations to their business to cope, so we will have to wait and see what happens. I would not use the 3,000 figure again.

Greg Mulholland: As Health Minister, the right hon. Gentleman said that 3,000 of the 12,000 pharmacies could close. That has come from pharmacies, not from politicians, so does he not accept that that is the real situation, as he said himself?

Alistair Burt: No. I said it, so I know why I said it. I said it because it was an estimate, and it took no account of any business change that people might make. It was a top-end estimate and I said it to indicate that I was aware that there might be closures and that we accordingly wanted to mitigate the effects. With hindsight, I would not have given that figure, because everyone has said that the Minister said that so many pharmacies would close. No, I did not. That figure does not represent the pharmacies that will close. They might have done if we had not had mitigating measures and if businesses had not made changes themselves. I wanted to put that on the record.
Let me say what I found when I took on the role. There was a discussion in pharmacy about its future. There were plenty of voices in pharmacy which said that the funding model that values volume and establishment but not necessarily quality of service was not the right way for pharmacy to go. The pharmacy profession wanted to see some changes. I thought that was relevant. There were differing voices in pharmacy. The Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee represents some, but there are other voices.
The integration fund we suggested as a way to look at how pharmacy was changing to come into GPs’ surgeries was warmly welcomed. There were innovations all over the country in pharmacy in general. There was a growing move towards healthy living pharmacies providing more services. All this was going on at the same time as we were talking about what changes we needed to make to provide the extra funds for the NHS.
So where are we going to go in the future? I think that we will get through this process. I remember saying to stakeholders in December 2015, “The future of pharmacy will not be decided by this letter. The future of pharmacy in 2020, 2025 and 2030 is still to be decided. It won’t all rest on this; it will rest on changes and progress to be made.”
First, the PSNC consultation process needs to be changed; I am not sure whether it works well when other voices are excluded, and that should be looked at. Secondly, the differing voices in pharmacy should find a way to get together and present a view beyond what is happening on the high street to show where pharmacy is going.
Thirdly, the integration of the NHS could be done better. Why are there not pharmacists on every single clinical commissioning group? There should be more commissioning of services; the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) was absolutely right that we need to do more, but the NHS needs to do more, with better commissioning and pharmacists being involved.
Fourthly, there needs to be a thorough review of what pharmacy can do and provide in the future, and that should be a springboard. Sometimes innovation comes out of pressure, not out of great resources, which we would love to see in a perfect world. Finally, we should ensure there is long-term support for a locally based network—there are models that would remove more from the locally based network that we should all resist—and such an approach would be the start of a good future for pharmacy.

Michael Dugher: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who tried to be extremely helpful to the current Minister—most ex-Ministers have ex-Ministeritis and tend to be extremely unhelpful to current Ministers, but not so the right hon. Gentleman. However, he did use that figure of 3,000 pharmacies—one in four—facing closure. He has attempted to qualify it now, and his defence seems to be that he made the estimate without properly thinking it through. To that extent, there is remarkable continuity with his successor, who makes a number of assertions without remotely thinking them through. However, if we are now told that we have to disregard what the previous Minister said, why on earth we should believe what the incumbent says? Who is to say that, in a year’s time, after some reshuffle, the Minister’s successor will not come to the House and tell us at the Dispatch Box, “You don’t want to pay any attention to what the fellow before me said. He never knew what he was talking about.”?
The Government’s impact assessment is worth closer examination, because it states:
“the potential impacts…are assessed on the basis that there is a scenario where no pharmacy closes”—
not one. That scenario is not shared by anyone else. Even the Minister, when asked how many would close, told the House, “I do not know.” The impact assessment goes on to concede:
“There is no reliable way of estimating the number of pharmacies that may close as a result of this policy.”
The Department literally has no idea. According to the impact assessment, the Department is officially clueless as to the impact on pharmacies.

Anna Turley: Does my hon. Friend agree that an impact assessment of the knock-on effects for the NHS more broadly would have been useful? One in four patients will probably seek with a GP an appointment they would have sought with a pharmacist. We have heard nothing from the Government about what the knock-on effect would be or what investigation they have done into that.

Michael Dugher: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It would have been helpful to have had an impact assessment as the basis for debate, rather than having something that was published on the day of the announcement.
My hon. Friend alludes to the fact that the impact assessment on community pharmacy says that cuts to community pharmacies will increase patient health benefits
“by reallocating savings from community pharmacy funding to other uses”—
a point the Minister made—
“ensuring that patient health is unaffected”.
Yet, polling commissioned by Pharmacy Voice shows that one in four patients would make an appointment at a GP if their local chemist was closed—a figure rising to four in five in more deprived communities such as my own in Barnsley.
There is no consideration whatever in the Government’s assessment of the potential downstream costs to other parts of the NHS budget, such as the pressure on GPs and A&E. The Department’s impact assessment does say that these cuts are
“expected to lead to reductions in the employment of pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and other pharmacy staff”,
so the Government are clear at least that local pharmacists—the people many of our constituents rely on—will go because of these cuts.
The impact assessment predicts that there will be a “corresponding increase” in other NHS employee numbers, so there will be “no net effect” on the NHS. That is completely without foundation. Are the Government really trying to tell us today that, for all their talk about the importance of community pharmacies and all the evidence about the pressures that will result on GPs and A&Es, which are already overstretched, the work of pharmacists in our local communities will, and should be, taken up by a corresponding increase in other NHS staff?
The impact assessment says:
“the modelling does not take any account of potential reduction in opening hours which may also affect access.”
You bet! New research published today and carried out by the National Pharmacy Association shows that, when faced with the Government’s budgetary cuts, 86% of community pharmacies are likely to limit or remove the home delivery of medicines to housebound patients; 77% of chemists say they will probably become more retail focused to deal with funding shortages—exactly the opposite of what the Minister hopes to achieve; and 54%—more than half—are likely to reduce their opening hours, which will limit patient access and put more strain on our already overstretched GP surgeries and A&E departments.
To sum up, the Government’s own impact assessment, which is well worth a read, if only for comedy value, reads as though it was written in haste on the back of a cigarette packet. The Government—rather like the Minister—are making up the policy as they go along. What Ministers are actually asking us to do today is to make a leap of faith: to turn a blind eye to all the evidence; to disregard all the warnings; to ignore the unanswered questions, the contradictory statements and the glaring omissions in the Government’s own case; to brush away expert opinion; and to dismiss the concerns of the public. Based on the Department’s own impact assessment, how can any right hon. or hon. Member possibly support the Government in the Lobby today?

Oliver Dowden: As we have already heard in the debate, many of us have seen the considerable value that local community pharmacies provide in our constituencies. I have seen that myself with the Manor pharmacy in Elstree, which is run by Graham Philips, to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) paid tribute. I would urge  the Minister to meet him; he really is a pool of expertise on this issue. The same is true of those at the Crown pharmacy at Borehamwood and Shenley.
What we see time and time again in these places is that the commitment to the customers goes way beyond what we would see from a normal retailer. There is a genuine understanding of the needs, health and wellbeing of the people who use such pharmacies. The services range from dementia-friendly services, picking up the early stages of the disease; healthy living advice, including assistance with drugs and weight management; and smoking cessation services.

Steve Double: Would my hon. Friend add to his list Nick Kaye in my constituency? He is carrying out some excellent work to collaborate with local GPs and to find innovative ways to deal with patients. Does my hon. Friend also agree that pharmacies are particularly important in tourist areas, as the frontline that can deal with tourists who have health problems, and take pressure off the other health services?

Oliver Dowden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that pharmacies play a crucial role in relieving the frontline of NHS services. However, that does not mean that reforms are not necessary. Of course we need to incentivise the kind of advantageous behaviour we have talked about; but we also need to recognise some of the problems with the provision of pharmaceutical services.
We know the basic problem; it has been referred to by other Members. The pharmacy budget has increased by 40% over the last decade. Even taking into account all the changes that the Government are proposing, funding for community pharmacies will still be 30% higher than when this Government first came to office in 2010. Equally, we have the problem of excessive clustering—a situation where there are many pharmacies within a short distance of one another.
Those who argue that there is no need for reform really need to explain where the money will come from. If we are not recycling these services to the frontline, we need to look for other savings, or we need to look at lower levels of service in the frontline of the NHS, whether that is services for diabetes or for cancer. There is no magic money tree. We have to take these difficult decisions in order to provide for the frontline, so I completely agree with the overall thrust of Government policy.
We can take an intelligent approach towards this issue. As we have heard, there is a big difference between various types of pharmacies. At one end of the scale, there are the very large pharmacies that are often in large retail outlets such as supermarkets and sit at the very back of the store. They are there, in essence, to encourage customers to go through the rest of the store to purchase other goods. They could easily take a larger cut than is being proposed, because they are just operating as loss leaders for those stores to get customers in the door in the first place.

Maria Caulfield: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. I was slightly disappointed that the shadow Minister did not really understand the principle of vertically integrated pharmacies. Some big national companies are making a lot of money out of pharmacy at the moment.

Oliver Dowden: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Equally, many such pharmacies do not provide any of the wider community health benefits. In essence, they are just dispensing services.

Philippa Whitford: Is it not estimated, however, that those will be the ones that survive, purely because they are big, while the small, high-service pharmacies in communities are more vulnerable?

Oliver Dowden: That is precisely the point that I am coming to. As we proceed with these reforms, hon. Members need to recognise that we will need further savings in this area. I am not attacking large retailers because of their size; it is because of the lack of such wider provisions. We need to look at ways of securing further savings from them which we can plough back into the community pharmacies that are providing the services on which all our constituents rely. I completely accept that pharmacies that are purely dispensing services are very inefficient as such. They are highly labour-intensive; it is just a very expensive way of delivering drugs. We need to identify ways in which we can bifurcate the two different types of providers.
I pay tribute to what the Minister has announced so far. He clearly demonstrates an understanding of the situation, as we have seen in relation to the protection of key local pharmacies through the community access scheme. For example, in my constituency, the services in places such as Elstree and Shenley, where we have small, rural communities, often with an elderly population, will be protected. Equally, the quality payment scheme recognises some of these wider community benefits.
However, I urge the Minister to do more in that area. Let me make two brief suggestions. First, we need more detailed recording of the sorts of services that are provided by pharmacies which take pressure off the NHS. As I understand it, there is no systematic way in which these additional benefits are recorded, and we are all working on the basis of estimates. We could have a system whereby the communities pharmacies systematically recorded the benefit that they provided, and then they could be better rewarded for those benefits. At the same time, there would be a means by which we could penalise, or find further cuts from, the pharmacies that did not provide those additional services.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) rightly commented on the common ailments scheme that operates in Scotland. The Minister indicated that the Government are moving down that route. I urge the Government to go further on this. There is absolutely no reason why patients suffering from things such as common cold and flu symptoms or head lice could not be referred directly from their GPs to pharmacies, thereby saving money for GPs and providing additional income for those pharmacies.
I support the overall direction of reform, but as the Government proceed with these reforms, they could do with engaging more in looking at ways of supporting what is best in community pharmacies while providing further savings from the services that do not provide them.

Luciana Berger: I rise to speak in support of the Opposition motion. I put on record my thanks for the extremely hard work  that has been done on this campaign by a number of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher).
Community pharmacies play a really crucial role in my constituency and, indeed, right across the country. We know from the many statistics, and the surveys and inquiries that have been done, that they are trusted. When I speak and listen to my constituents, it is clear that they trust the community pharmacies that they engage with, and also develop very close relationships with the people who work in them. I see that for myself when I go to collect my prescriptions locally. They are enormously busy places. I note that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) said that they just deliver drugs, but they do so much more than that within our communities.

Oliver Dowden: That was not my point; I was saying that many large-scale dispensaries, particularly in supermarkets, do little more than deliver drugs, but we need to focus on the community pharmacies that provide the wider services.

Luciana Berger: The hon. Gentleman has just spoken in support of the Opposition motion.
When we had an urgent question on this subject, I listened closely to the Minister, who talked particularly about how far he expected people to travel and said that lots of community pharmacies were not very busy. Over recent weeks, I have made a point of looking through the windows of my local community pharmacies to see whether any of them are in fact empty, and it is fair to say that none of them are at any point. The statistics show how busy our local community pharmacies actually are. The figures speak for themselves. The average community pharmacy sees, on average, 137 people every single day. They dispense 87,000 prescription items over the course of a year. They support, on average, 250 people with diabetes, 389 people with asthma, 463 unpaid carers, 805 older people, 1,317 with a mental health condition, and 1,416 people discharged from hospital. The last figure is particularly important. I will not presuppose what the Health Committee report that comes out tomorrow might say about pressures on our winter A&E services, but it is fair to say that many people are expecting, following a summer crisis in the A&Es in our hospitals, that our local hospital services will be under enormous amounts of pressure. Our community pharmacies already do a really important job in supporting our constituents who have been discharged from hospital.
I have had the opportunity to listen to members of my local pharmaceutical committee. When I asked them what the local stats and figures were so that I was equipped for this debate, I was very struck by what they said. Hon. Members have already mentioned to the Minister—it is regrettable that he is no longer in his place—the pharmacy assessment scheme and how it has been put together. It is enormously regrettable, to put it politely, that it does not take account of deprivation. That means that the pharmacies in the most deprived areas of our country, where patients have greater health needs, are not entitled to claim the payment. I made this point earlier, and I make it again: in Liverpool, we have some of the highest levels of deprivation; Kensington ward is in the top 20 in the country. No pharmacies in my constituency are eligible for the pharmacy assessment  scheme payment, and just two across the whole of Liverpool are eligible—one in Croxteth and one in Netherley. That means that all the other 129 community pharmacies across Liverpool, and six distance-selling pharmacies, face the full funding cut. That puts at risk the very vital service that they offer to my constituents and people across Liverpool.
The funding cut in this financial year has already had an impact on our local pharmacies. Some have already curtailed their free, but unfunded, delivery service to patients. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East highlighted the hours in which those services are often provided. They are a lifeline for house-bound and vulnerable patients across our country.
Other pharmacies are already in the process of making staff redundant, so they will have to survive on fewer staff. Pharmacists in some of our community pharmacies will, therefore, inevitably be tied more to the dispensing bench rather than undertaking the enhanced clinical role that NHS England, the Department of Health and Ministers expect them to deliver under the five year forward view.
The point about deprivation is so important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) said in his important opening remarks, it is outrageous that the pharmacy assessment scheme will further widen health inequalities in our country. We will have a specific debate about that issue next Tuesday, so I ask the Minister to reflect on it. In 2016, we have a responsibility to close the gap, not promote schemes that will widen it. I note in particular that the scheme makes no provision for patients and communities with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will make a very brief point in the 13 seconds that I have left. Some Members, including the Minister, keep calling community pharmacies “private enterprises,” but there are many co-operatives that provide these services, often in rural and isolated areas across the country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. I am afraid that the limit has to be dropped to four minutes.

Julian Sturdy: Like many Members, I have been fortunate over the years to see the brilliant services provided by local pharmacies in my constituency, including in the communities of Haxby and Wigginton, Fulford and Poppleton, to name but a few. I have also witnessed the very important role that pharmacies play in delivering care in the community. We must ensure that they are properly incorporated into the delivery of primary care.
I have the utmost respect for the new Minister and I wish him well in his new role, but I fear that he has been given a hospital pass. Having said that, I understand why he wants to make reforms. I agree that we need to improve the service offered to patients, allocate resources more efficiently and ensure better integration with the wider NHS. I welcome the recently announced pharmacy integration fund, which aims to link pharmacies to primary care.
If we are truly seeking to integrate services better, however, and to reduce reliance on funding to pharmacies for simply existing and to promote high-quality care, we must further expand the role of pharmacies and the treatments that they can administer. That would help shrug off the lingering perception that pharmacies are simply drug dispensers. For example, could things such as the winter flu jab be overseen exclusively by pharmacies?
I also support the growing calls for a truly national minor ailments scheme that directs patients to pharmacies and away from GP practices where appropriate. I welcome the Minister’s announcement that NHS England hopes to have such a scheme in place by April 2018. I hope that it will be a transformative moment for community pharmacies and primary care more widely, and I look forward to scrutinising it.
I am also pleased that, through the introduction of a pharmacy access scheme, the Minister is seeking to address some of the concerns about rural communities losing their pharmacies. He has said that 40% of pharmacies are in clusters of three or more, and I agree that we should introduce a better funding system to disincentivise that practice.
That brings me to the one-mile rule. Although I understand completely the principle behind it, I remain concerned about whether it will truly ensure that
“a baseline level of patient access to NHS community pharmacy services is protected.”
In the short time that I have left, I will cite an example in my constituency. Fulford pharmacy, which is a small, independent business and is not part of a large chain, sits only 80 metres away from the one-mile rule and is, therefore, ineligible for the pharmacy access scheme. It is not in one of the 20% most deprived areas, either. As a result, I fear that the 3,000 residents of Fulford could lose access to that fantastic service, given that the next nearest pharmacy is some distance away in Fishergate. May I encourage the Minister to consider introducing flexibility or a case-by-case assessment to ensure that pharmacies that serve specific communities do not fall by the wayside?
I will reinforce that point in the last few seconds that I have left. I am told that two branches of Boots pharmacy in terminals 3 and 5 of Heathrow airport will receive pharmacy access scheme payments, as they are more than a mile apart, despite clearly not serving any specific community.

Naseem Shah: This debate could not come at a more important time for my constituents, because a potential 25% of the 42 community pharmacies in my constituency face closure due to the funding deal that this short-sighted Government imposed last week.
Pharmacies in Bradford West play a vital role in the total holistic healthcare services on offer to my constituents. My constituency is the fourth most deprived in the country, and we have one of the most diverse communities. Constituents face genuine day-to-day struggles to access the services and advice that they require. The 2014 patient survey report showed that more than a quarter of them could not access a GP appointment when they needed it.
We acknowledge the essential and diverse service that our community pharmacies perform and, in an attempt to maximise their impact, Bradford trialled the minor  ailments scheme, which the Minister has referred to, in 2014. I spoke to Mr Ajmal Amin of my local pharmacy, Sahara, only this morning, and he explained that, in addition to the more than 100 people a week who walk through his door, an average 50 a week do so as part of the minor ailments scheme. Even if one in four people end up going to a GP appointment, that means 90,000 extra GP appointments a year in my constituency alone, at a cost of more than £4 million.
Bradford has a higher incidence of cancer, diabetes, stroke and coronary heart disease, and that is because poverty, deprivation and ill health go hand in hand—there is a clear correlation between them.
I will give a recent personal example. Over the past few months, my mother has suffered three transient ischaemic attacks. One of them was a potential stroke and she has already had cancer. Only last week, she was admitted to Luton hospital with an acute kidney infection. On Monday morning, it took 42 attempts for me to get through to my GP practice to make an appointment, but by the time I got through at 23 minutes past 8, all the appointments had gone. That experience is not unique to me; it is happening across the country. If we close community pharmacies, GPs will come under extra pressure. I have not seen a Government plan to give my constituency—which is one of five in Bradford—£4 million for another 90,000 appointments a year.
The reality is that the proposals will disproportionately affect those who need healthcare the most. Yes, we have lots of pharmacies, but the Government’s proposals do not take into account diverse communities with complex health needs.

Margaret Greenwood: It is interesting to hear what is happening in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Five of the 23 pharmacies in my constituency of Wirral West are at risk of closure because of the Government cuts. Given the huge pressures that NHS services are under, does my hon. Friend share my concerns that the cuts will further inhibit the options of elderly and infirm people in particular in accessing the services that they need?

Naseem Shah: I agree with my hon. Friend. My constituents have so many complex health needs. I am a former NHS commissioner, and I commissioned services in accordance with public health priorities in Bradford. Obesity, cancer and diabetes are long-term chronic conditions and they impact on those communities with the most deprivation. It is not just one whammy: we have deprivation, lack of jobs and so on. We need to look holistically at people. Taking away pharmacies from our communities is not the way to provide healthcare services. We cannot and must not look at pharmacies as stand-alone items. They are part of a holistic care package across the board, and they complement the NHS and GPs.
Let me be clear: the fact that I could not get through to my GP surgery until my 42nd attempt is not a reflection on my GP practice, Kensington Street health centre, which is one of the best I have ever experienced. The staff are amazing. They are working to try to fit a square peg into a round hole because of the extent of the cuts that they have already experienced. This is not about GP practices not delivering what they can; it is  simply that they do not have the resources. We do not have enough GPs as it is, and taking away pharmacies will not help.
I urge the Government to revisit this proposal, which has not been clearly thought through and does not take into account constituencies such as mine. I urge the Government to abolish it and bring something else to the table, because it is clearly not going to work.

Derek Thomas: We are all aware of the letter received by pharmacists on 17 December last year, in which the Department of Health discussed the potential for far greater use of community pharmacies and pharmacists. The letter referred to community pharmacists’ role in preventive care, in support for healthy living, in support for self-care for minor ailments and long-term conditions, in medication reviews in care homes and as part of a more integrated local care model. The letter also informed us of plans to reduce funding by £170 million.
I was fortunate enough to be the first MP to raise the matter in a Westminster Hall debate at the beginning of this year. I raised the concerns of community pharmacists about their funding as the plan progressed, as it was intended to do by October 2016. That all came about because the issue was raised in a constituency surgery that I held in St Ives at the start of January. Since then, the general public have been very engaged in this, and they are concerned about the future of their pharmacies. I joined others in this House to present a petition with 2 million signatures to No. 10 in the summer.
I represent a Cornish seat where every effort is being made to integrate health and social care, and community pharmacists see themselves as essential players in a new, modern national health service that is equipped to meet the demands placed on it by today’s society. Community pharmacy is valued and depended on, and it can embrace new clinical responsibilities and meet the demands of an ageing population, but the sector is looking to Government for some reassurance about its future, particularly regarding funding for community pharmacy.
In my constituency, I have several independent community pharmacists. That is because my patch is large and includes areas of social deprivation, which has an inherent impact on health. A car journey from the north to the south of my constituency takes an hour, and a journey from the most westerly point to the most southerly point takes an hour and nine minutes. In a rural area such as mine, community pharmacists provide invaluable access to the NHS and invaluable support to vulnerable people. I am reassured by the fact that the Government have indicated that some protection will be given to rural pharmacies and those in deprived rural areas. That is welcome indeed.
However, funding of community pharmacy remains a concern, and the community pharmacy sector has called for the Department of Health to use funds cut from the community pharmacy budget to fund a minor ailments service from 2017. The service would allow eligible people with a list of common health complaints to visit their pharmacy for advice and, where appropriate, medicines at no cost. That could create significant savings for the NHS by ensuring that patients with minor conditions use pharmacies, thereby preventing unnecessary GP appointments and A&E attendances.
I am well aware of the need to secure better value for money in areas of the NHS. In Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly we are actively involved in drawing up our STP, as directed by NHS England. The NHS has outlined this approach to ensure that health and care services are built around the needs of local populations. I believe that that provides the best opportunity to integrate health and social care in a meaningful way, reduce the pressure on acute services and avoid unnecessary hospital admissions. I also believe that the community pharmacy is central to achieving that objective.
I am aware of the time, so I will just ask a few questions of the Minister. Can the Minister give more details about what support will be given to rural independent community pharmacies and those in deprived areas, many of which operate in Cornwall? Will the Minister comment on the community pharmacy forward view, and the Department’s response to the vision set out by community pharmacy—

Natascha Engel: Order.

Jim McMahon: Here we are again, debating more slash-and-burn cuts to vital public services. Generations and decades of investment are being eroded in just a few short years. What will be left?
I think we all accept that if we can make savings in the public sector, we should do so, because we should use the money to the best possible effect. But it is short-sighted to take money away from community services when the accepted logic is that those services save money in the long run. It beggars belief that we are debating this again.

Conor McGinn: In my constituency, local pharmacies and GPs are working collaboratively to build an integrated health centre in Haydock. Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Government say they want to encourage such working, their actions, as usual, do not match their words, because they are cutting the funding that would make that long-term, sustainable investment worthwhile?

Jim McMahon: I share that view entirely. My preferred option would be to devolve that power with fair funding to local areas, so that they can decide. The Government have proven time and again that they do not understand or value the public services that our communities rely on.
Let me tell Members what it is like in Oldham. We have 57 community pharmacies, nine of which have 100-hour contracts and four of which offer delivery services. That is about 25 pharmacies per 100,000 residents. Ask the public how they perceive those pharmacies, and 93% say that those pharmacies are doing a good job, while 88% of people in Oldham use those pharmacies. They are respected, and they are used by the community. When asked, the main reason people gave for using those pharmacies was their proximity and location. People could get to those pharmacies to access the services that they needed.
The truth is that we do not need fewer pharmacies; we need more, because demand is going up. I am not the only one who says so. The local health and wellbeing board says so in a 90-page review of pharmaceutical support in Oldham. It says that we have enough pharmacies  to meet current demand, but that demand is going up because people are living longer, because the population is increasing and because new homes are—as the Government want—being built in the area to support new families. That requires the infrastructure to be in place.
Many wards in the borough do not have pharmacies that are open at weekends, so it is not as though we have a gold-plated service. We are just about getting by. It is not as though pharmacists are twiddling their thumbs behind the counter waiting for somebody to walk through the door. The average number of prescriptions dispensed by those outlets is 7,000 a month. We really need to think about what we are doing, whether the money is in the best possible place and whether we are valuing the real saving that can be derived further down the line.
I am not the only one who says that pharmacies can help us to achieve savings. PwC, which is hardly a standard bearer for public services, has said that pharmacies in the community save £3 billion a year. Why? Because people do not have to go to the GP or present to A&E, and because prevention is far better than cure. That is exactly what community pharmacists are there to do.
I really worry about what we are going to do to the industry and to the profession—that community service—which people aspire to be part of. I can tell Members what community pharmacists are saying, because I have a letter from a local pharmacist who lives in the Werneth area of my constituency. Mr Khan studied hard through school, sixth-form college and university to set up his own pharmacy. He works very long hours; although he is funded to work 40 hours a week, he actually works 50 hours a week—10 hours a week free of charge to the NHS—because he believes in a community service. He provides a delivery service, which is not paid for by the NHS, where he takes prescriptions out to the public. For a lot of the people he meets, he might be the only person they see during the week. According to the estimates in the report that I referred to, 15,000 more people in my borough will be living alone by 2017. Loneliness and isolation are real issues, and such community infrastructure is an important way of combating them.
I want to read out an important quote from the pharmacist I have mentioned. He said:
“Many of us, however, feel betrayed, angry and confused right now because the government who promised to make Pharmacy at the heart of the NHS; has ripped the very heart out of Pharmacy.”
It is not me or the Labour party saying that, but a pharmacist. They have studied hard and worked hard to set up their own business, and they work hard every day for their community, but they are being let down by this callous Government.

Nigel Mills: I declare an interest, as my wife works as a community pharmacist just outside my constituency. It is probably fair to say that from my discussions with her and with my local pharmacists, I know the valuable work they do and the pressures on them, as well as they changes that they would like so that they can give a better service.
The Public Accounts Committee has had nine or 10 inquiries in the past year or so looking at the pressure on NHS finances and the various deficits in the system. It is therefore quite hard to stand up and say that the Government are completely wrong to try to  find some efficiency savings from the pharmacy budget, or that we should just ignore the £3 billion or so paid to pharmacies each year without trying to find some savings. If we are going to hit the efficiency target across the NHS of £22 billion during this Parliament, while having all the services we want, we will have to accept such savings in every area, although it is not going to be easy wherever they fall. I can therefore see the logic of why the Government need to look at the pharmacy budget.
I also accept the logic that although the system we have ended up with, in which we give each pharmacy a fixed “establishment payment”, may well have been suitable when we had a very controlled regime, under which a licence had to be got to open a new pharmacy, it probably did not fit well with the old 100-hour regime, under which there was a vast expansion in the number of pharmacies across the country. It is right to look at that system. It may also be right to look at the 100-hour pharmacies to see exactly what the rules for them should be.
I welcome the pharmacy access scheme, which is a very welcome improvement on what was originally suggested for this round of cuts. Two pharmacies in my constituency will benefit from it. I met both pharmacists when the cuts were first announced. Those pharmacies provide the only health provision in the villages they serve, so it is vital for them to be saved.

Steve Rotheram: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a false economy to cut services, given that the knock-on effects on GP services and the NHS will cost more, and that it will do nothing to alleviate the problem of health inequalities in this country?

Nigel Mills: It would clearly be a false economy if it resulted in losing pharmacies in areas where we need them. Equally, we would have to say to GPs, “I’m sorry. We can’t take the money off the pharmacies. We are taking it off you instead.” That would make it harder for them to deliver the services that they want to deliver. I do not think there are any easy answers. The system is under so much financial pressure that we must find savings wherever we can.
I have a few areas on which I want the Minister to comment when he winds up. The first is the hub-and-spoke model. Such a model would have been a complete disaster for community pharmacies. If the system is to work, we need pharmacists who know and are trusted by their patients so that they can deliver to patients the extra services that they need. If we moved to a hub-and-spoke model, in which the pharmacy knows almost nothing about the patients—the drugs are just prepared in a factory somewhere and then turn up for the patient—we would not have the community advantages from the pharmacy network that we all want. I hope that that idea, which may have been raised by some management consultants, can safely be binned—where most such ideas are probably worth sending.
The second area is the provision of services by pharmacists. I know that my local pharmacies are very keen to deliver more value-added services. They see that as right for the NHS and in the best interests of their patients. As I found out five years ago, when we went through the clinical commissioning group reform, they are not quite so sure that local GPs are keen on  commissioning new services from pharmacies, rather than carrying out those services and taking the revenue themselves. We know that there is pressure in the GP sector, so we can see the point of that.
We need to have a vision throughout the country about what core services should be commissioned from pharmacies. I think the word the Government use about the minor ailments scheme, which I generally support, is that we should “encourage” all CCGs to commission such a scheme. I hope we can do something a little stronger than encourage, and that we can have a broader list of services for CCGs to commission from pharmacies. I have seen great work done on that in my constituency. Permission has been given for syringe driver services to be carried out by some pharmacies, rather than hospitals, so that they can be got to the patients needing them much more quickly and cheaply. Some pharmacies do warfarin testing, because it is much more convenient for patients to go to their local pharmacy than to have to trek to the nearest hospital or to their GP. Those services are very patchy and do not even cover a whole constituency, so I hope we will draw up a core list of services that can be done better by pharmacies and which will be used.
I will quickly touch on the third area, which is the variety of opening hours. Quite rightly, we are to start directing patients from the 111 service to their pharmacy rather than to out-of-hours doctors as the first port of call for emergency repeat prescriptions. However, there is an interesting mix in that some pharmacies open for 100 hours a week—perhaps opening at 6 am and closing at midnight—and other pharmacies open from 9 o’clock to 5 o’clock from Monday to Friday and may open for a couple of hours on Saturday morning. How will we commission all pharmacies to carry out such a service if some do not open out of hours? On the flipside, we still require many of them to open for 100 hours a week, even though it is not economic for them to do so during many of those hours. There is therefore scope for a review of the hours during which we expect pharmacies to open.

Karin Smyth: Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were to walk along a busy shopping street in Bedminster in my Bristol South constituency today, you would pass seven pharmacies within a mile or so. However, if you were to walk through the Knowle West estate or Hartcliffe, which are two of the most deprived wards in the country, you would see many fewer pharmacies.
I have spent time in pharmacies in Filwood Broadway and Bedminster, and like most hon. Members, I have been contacted by pharmacists and constituents who are worried about the plans. The greatest fear in my constituency, which has a relatively high density of pharmacies, is its severe problem with GP recruitment and with the sustainability of primary care. We stand to lose disproportionately from those twin concerns. As hon. Members have said, we all know the valuable role that pharmacies play in our communities. This is not just about the damage to healthcare as a result of some of the cuts, but about the impact on our wider economy in some of our most deprived areas.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were to wander around my constituency in two years’ time, how many pharmacies—and, crucially, which ones—would still  exist? As hon. Members are aware, the NHS-wide process of sustainability and transformation planning is currently being undertaken with the aim, finally, of taking a strategic overview of the whole system. This is the first bottom-up, system-wide planning that has taken place since the disastrous Health and Social Care Act 2012. We are bringing back planning to the system, which is long overdue. This is also about saving a lot of money.
In that context, the delayed Government funding announcements on pharmacies, followed by rushed ones, are the opposite of the STP process. It shows an absence of planning, and a failure to include the vital role that the community pharmacy can play. Where is the sense, when communities need stability, in forcing through a cut of this magnitude at this time? The Chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), said that earlier.
In my area, the local pharmacy committee is represented on the STP board. All the local players are working hard, collaboratively, in the best interests of patients, to find a solution to our local healthcare needs. However, as has been said by the chair of the LPC, Lisa Fisher, who runs a pharmacy at Whitchurch in my constituency, this measure is a “devastating blow”. It runs totally counter to the process that Ministers want to succeed.
The Bristol CCG reported earlier this year on the root cause of the waste of medicines, and made recommendations to address the problems in the system. The figures are eye-watering. It estimates that medicine waste amounts to £5.7 million a year in Bristol, and that we can save £2.8 million a year. It made 15 recommendations for such work, but none covers having fewer pharmacies in our community.
The Minister may stand in front of pharmacies and lament the way in which the market has produced clusters in some areas, but will a large supermarket chain housing a pharmacy decide the floor space is better utilised for a café, and will the pharmacy that does the most deliveries in areas of greatest health need and that offers the most self-care advice close? How does he know? He does not. Crucially, how will my constituents know, and how can they influence the service provided to them?
In Ministers’ minds, is any consideration being given to starting from community need, not from market forces at such a time? If they were putting forward a new model that was genuinely built on pharmacies being at the forefront of Government thinking in addressing the challenges of our healthcare system, that would be good, but they are not doing so. This is not a modernisation package, but a fig leaf. It is a missed opportunity, and that is a great shame at this time.

Paul Scully: During the past year, I have visited a number of local, independently run community pharmacies across Sutton. They add much to our local healthcare provision, and they have the potential to add so much more, as we have heard. We therefore need to tread carefully when looking at changes to funding and configuration. When I spent time in those pharmacies, I saw a steady stream of customers. The pharmacist knew most of them by name, as well as their background and wider circumstances. Such a special relationship takes time to build, but it can be so valuable in assessing health needs and pre-empting  any problems. We need to look at how we can develop community pharmacies further as a neighbourhood health and wellbeing hub, so that they become the go-to destination for support and advice and act as a gateway for other healthcare services.
As a number of hon. Members have done, I have been to A&E and seen people who have not had an accident or do not appear to be an emergency, so it is right to look at how we push people towards GP services. However, there seems to be less discussion in public about encouraging people to look to their pharmacist, rather than to their GP, for healthy lifestyle advice, minor ailments care and routine support. The all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy heard some great evidence from the LloydsPharmacy group about its diabetes foot service and inhaler check service, which enable people to get the most out of their treatment and can make their medication far more effective. Those kinds of extra services make community pharmacies incredibly valuable.

Oliver Colvile: Does my hon. Friend recognise that we need to make greater use of things such as opticians as well?

Paul Scully: My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
Independent pharmacies in Sutton conduct medicine reviews, which we have heard about, and often deliver to their patients’ homes. They therefore see people in their own environment, rather than in a GP surgery. They get to see what is left in the bathroom cabinet, forgotten about or set aside. Ignoring or forgetting to take prescribed medicines causes such a lot of waste. There is an estimated £300 million a year that could go to other front-line services. By seeing the patient in their own environment, the pharmacist can make an assessment based on the patient’s everyday life, rather than just a snapshot, which might be affected by things such as white coat syndrome.
Consultation room services, such as sexual health, smoking cessation and minor ailment services, have to be a good thing for the NHS and should be encouraged. From what I have seen in pharmacies, there is still too much of a disconnect in the exchange of patient information between GPs and pharmacists. If advice and treatment are to work, they must be done in full knowledge of the patient’s background and medical history.
I understand the concerns that have driven the review and the changes that we are debating. The current funding system encourages pharmacy companies to open numerous low prescription volume sites, especially with the guaranteed fixed payment of £25,000 a year, regardless of size, quality or local demand. Some 40% of pharmacies are in clusters of two or more, with 20% being within 10 minutes’ walk of at least two others. That is reflected in Sutton. There are three in Worcester Park, four in north Cheam and six in and around Sutton High Street.
My concern is that any closures that result from these changes are more likely to come from the independent portion—those pharmacists who go beyond the corporate approach, often offering services at no cost or at a loss, because it is the right thing to do; those who prioritise the service that patients need, rather than shareholder value. Responding to customers on a personal basis  allows independent pharmacists to consider savings such as generic substitution. We talk about a seven-day NHS, but pharmacists need to be set free to offer a high street NHS.
The Government’s changes recognise much of what pharmacists’ bodies have been raising. The changes seek to move pharmacists away from being reliant primarily on dispensing income, which is more vulnerable in the long term, towards services. Repeat prescriptions and those who come in via the 111 service will be directed to pharmacies, rather than out-of-hours GPs. For the first time, pharmacies will be paid for the quality of the services they provide, not just the volume. There is much to be welcomed, but I urge the Minister to keep the impact of the changes on independent pharmacies, which are often family run, under constant review.

Craig Mackinlay: My hon. Friend is speaking very well for the independent pharmacy sector. It is those pharmacies that we should be protecting the most, because they are the first triage that saves the NHS money down the line. They can save a lot of money for the general NHS drugs bill by knowing their patients well, knowing the GPs and suggesting something cheaper. I am not convinced that the Government have looked into that aspect closely enough.

Paul Scully: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I have spoken about generic substitution and some of the things LloydsPharmacy and family-run services are doing in the consultation room. Those things are to be welcomed, encouraged and boosted.
I urge the Minister, in the coming months and years, to keep the impact of the changes on independent, often family-run pharmacists under constant review, because I and many others in this place certainly will.

Tristram Hunt: I support the Opposition motion and pay tribute to the great campaigning leadership shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) and the shadow Health Secretary in bringing this matter to public attention and opposing the £170 million of cuts, the 12% reduction in funding and the further 7% reduction next year, and the threat to shorten the working hours in pharmacies and to strip out jobs in local pharmacies, which will have an impact, particularly in high-poverty communities. We are having this debate on the day that the Resolution Foundation reports that tax cuts since 2010 have taken £32 billion out of the Exchequer, so this debate is about political choice. It is about where we put public funds and whether we support the impact on high-poverty communities that the Opposition believe these cuts to pharmacies will engender.
I will focus briefly on the situation in Stoke-on-Trent. My constituency has a very good Miltons chemist in Stoke and the Norfolk Street pharmacy in Hanley, which is a former pub that was converted into an excellent community pharmacy. Those pharmacies are very concerned about the impact of the proposed cuts. Earlier this week in the Chamber, the Secretary of State for Health acknowledged the stress on healthcare in Stoke-on-Trent. He is coming to the city to see the Royal Stoke hospital because the closure of Stafford  hospital and the community hospitals at Longton, Cheadle and Bradwell, and the pressure on our GPs, are putting immense pressure on it.
Part of the answer has to be ensuring that we have primary preventive care, of which pharmacies are an essential component. Everything we have heard in this Chamber is about the enormous contribution they make and should make to healthcare provision, yet the trajectory of Government policy is to undermine that provision. We know that if people do not have access to pharmacies, they try to get appointments at the GP. We know that in disadvantaged communities, more and more people would seek to do that.
We have addressed the issue of clustering, with too many pharmacies being clustered together. However, we know from the Durham University report that this is a particular issue in high-poverty communities. As the shadow Health Secretary put it, pharmacies have a particular value in local communities in terms of the language skills they offer black and minority ethnic communities, their opening hours and the trust and confidence engendered by the professionals running these operations. To strip that out will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) said, wreak enormous costs down the line through the impact on healthcare.
I urge the Minister, who is financially astute, to understand that it will be a gross disservice if those who are hardest hit by these reforms are the family-run community pharmacies, while highly indebted, highly leveraged multinational pharmacies, whose taxes are not always located in the UK, somehow do not take the hit. Family pharmacies that contribute to the UK through their taxes and their community role should not be the victims of this change.
I agree with reform to the NHS. I do not have some Ken Loach fetishisation of the past. I believe in modernisation and reform. There was much that I agreed with in what the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said about reforms in pharmacies. However, we must ensure that this modernisation is built around progressive reform, particularly for low-income communities such as Stoke-on-Trent, and is not simply based on cost and political choice, which the Resolution Foundation has highlighted today.

Maria Caulfield: I will not go through the many arguments made by hon. Members, but the reason I do not support the Opposition motion is that I do not agree with their argument about funding. The current funding system for pharmacies in this country is not working. Pharmacies have grown organically in a haphazard way, not necessarily meeting the needs of patients or the changing demands of healthcare.
I find it extraordinary that Opposition Members are satisfied that big national companies such as Sainsbury’s, Boots and Asda, many of which make profits of £1 billion a year, are being funded with NHS money, which goes to each and every one of their branches. That is completely unacceptable. [Interruption.] I will not give way because there is not enough time. I agree with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) that the money that is saved through these changes must go to community pharmacies and away from big business.
I have severe concerns about the proposals on the table, however, and I have met the Minister to raise them. The first is my fear that the role of the pharmacist is not properly understood. As a practising nurse, I see at first hand every day the role that pharmacists play in safeguarding patients. Doctors often make out prescriptions that are wrong or do not take into account current medications a patient is on. That is where the pharmacist comes in. Thinking that pharmacists simply stand at a counter, pick a box off a shelf and put a sticker on it is misguided; they do a huge amount more.
Another concern is the proposal or recommendation that we move towards either GP dispensing or GP practices housing pharmacists. I know from talking to my GP practices that they are bursting at the seams. It is not as simple as installing a pharmacist at a practice; pharmacists need storage space for their medication, temperature-controlled rooms and space to make up that medication. I know that my GP practices do not have that space right now. I also have concerns about GPs’ taking on dispensing; as I have said, pharmacists have a crucial role in safeguarding patients. Who will pick up those mistakes, or look at patient medication or drug interaction if no pharmacist is there?
My biggest concern—again, this point was made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire—is that this is a huge missed opportunity. We are doing things the wrong way round. We should be looking at the system and at patients’ needs. We should follow the excellent model currently running in Scotland and learn from it, rather than thinking, “We need to save money. How can we best do that?”
As many Members have mentioned, there is some obvious stuff that pharmacists are doing now.

Jim McMahon: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Maria Caulfield: I will not—as I have said, time is short.
Right now, pharmacists are running clinics for asthma, blood pressure and thyroid issues. But we are not seeing what pharmacists could do. They are highly experienced and highly qualified. They should have registers of patients and be referring people to clinicians and hospitals themselves. They should be a second point of primary medical care. I cannot support the Opposition, because they are wrong that this is only about saving money. It is much bigger than that, and should be an opportunity to improve primary care overall.

Norman Lamb: My central argument is that this is a cut to preventive healthcare and as such is completely irrational, makes no sense and will be a false economy. It will end up with fewer people accessing pharmacies than at the moment, resulting in more pressure on GPs and A&E departments.
I have made the point to the Government before that, by all means, they should do more to get more bang for their buck, to ensure that money is working effectively and that people get good preventive care in their communities, but they should not cut the budget for preventive care. In response to my earlier intervention, the Minister said that the cut was compensated for by the extra investment in GP practices, but that is misleading because the total investment in GP practices for pharmacies  will be £112 million between now and 2020, yet in one year, by 2017-18, this budget will be down by £208 million. It is a massive cut to preventive care. It makes no sense at all and is the precise opposite of what the Government claim they seek to do on shifting resources within the NHS.

Tim Farron: When I surveyed pharmacists in my community, they told me, among other things, that in what is probably England’s most rural county, more than 80% of pharmacies do not qualify for the rural pharmacy access scheme, and for those that do, that money will be blown away by the larger cuts. Given that staff are already being laid off, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest areas of damage will be to small, rural pharmacies in areas such as ours?

Norman Lamb: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point; it was the second one that I was going to make. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) made clear earlier, the impact will be arbitrary, and disadvantaged communities and rural areas will feel it most. Only four of the 15 pharmacists in my community will benefit from the pharmacy access scheme; all the others will not, yet they are needed by their local community.

Greg Mulholland: There were some outrageous comments earlier suggesting that some of those smaller pharmacies are simply there for dispensing, when they have trained pharmacists helping people. As well as the important village and rural pharmacies—I have village pharmacies in Pool and Bramhope that do excellent work—communities in suburbs rely on smaller pharmacies; those communities will lose that service.

Norman Lamb: Absolutely. It is the arbitrary impact of the cut that concerns me so much.
The other aspect of that arbitrariness is—again, a point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire—that the big boys will be fine. They will survive. Surely, the Government should be addressing the excess profits of those organisations, rather than putting in danger—as their own impact assessment says—the small independent pharmacies and small chains. It is completely irrational and makes no sense.
The final issue I want to raise is that, instead of going about cutting preventive care, protecting the big boys and putting small pharmacies at risk, the Government ought to be undertaking a major programme to increase what pharmacies do. We heard earlier about what is happening in Scotland; that is the approach that should be taken. There should be more work on smoking cessation, on sexual health, on substance misuse and on screening and immunisation, and more should be done to promote independent living, encourage healthy lifestyles and support people in their self-care.
The Government’s approach makes no sense. The bottom line is that, as the Government scrape around trying to find enough resources to prop up the NHS, which, as we know, is expecting to receive a reducing percentage of our national income between now and 2020, they are making stupid decisions such as cutting spending on health education, on public health and on community pharmacies. The Government are in a complete mess. We need extra resources for the NHS and a new long-term settlement. The sooner the Government recognise that, the better.

Maggie Throup: As many hon. Members have already described, our community pharmacies play a vital role in all our communities. When my mum was seriously ill and housebound, her local pharmacist and all his staff were amazing. Nothing was too much trouble, whether it was changing her medicines at the last minute and delivering them to her home, or offering to deliver things like toothpaste and loo rolls at the same time. That is what community pharmacists are all about—being at the centre of the community, wherever they are.
Being part of the local community is even more important in rural areas, especially for the elderly who are often housebound, or have limited access to cars and so rely on public transport. That is why I welcome the pharmacy access scheme that the Minister has put in place. It should safeguard those pharmacies that are more than a mile apart and, more importantly, protect their patients. The Minister has gone further by adding in areas with high health needs. That must be welcomed, but I would like more specific information to help to reassure pharmacies in my constituency.
We all know that pharmacists can and want to do more. It is imperative that every community pharmacy across the country plays its part in providing first-class healthcare outside the hospital setting. Pharmacists are highly trained professionals with a wealth of knowledge that must be used to its fullest. As we hear time and again, our GPs are under a great deal of pressure. Our pharmacists are a group of professionals who can and do shoulder some of that workload. To name just a few of the services they can provide, they can give flu jabs, test cholesterol, monitor warfarin and check blood pressure. There is no reason why they cannot carry out other simple tests, such as point of care C-reactive protein tests to differentiate between viral and bacterial infections, and so play their role in combating antimicrobial resistance.
I have a request for the Minister. He should be more ambitious with the timescale for roll-out of the minor ailments service. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) about just how successful that service is in Scotland. We must combat any barriers that the CCGs put forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) suggested.
The 18% increase in the number of pharmacies over the past 10 years has in many instances led to clusters of three or more pharmacies within just one location. Each gets a guaranteed payment of £25,000 every year regardless of the quality of service they offer, the number of prescriptions they process or whether increased capacity in the area was needed when they actually opened. I am sure many of my constituents will think that is wrong and wonder whether it is the right way to spend taxpayers’ money.

Philippa Whitford: Does the hon. Lady recognise that pharmacies were allowed to open simply because they were willing to be open for 100 hours? The growth was random, and my concern is that this cut is random. Planning is the issue.

Maggie Throup: I completely agree that growth has not been controlled. We need to go back a number of  years to learn from what happened and ensure it does not happen again. We also need to ensure that we put the right reforms in place now.
It is important that the £25,000, just for opening the doors, is not offered to other retail stores on the high street. It is vital we get the best possible deal for the taxpayer and the patient. The patient must be at the heart of everything. We must also remember that every pound saved by these changes will be invested back into the NHS. We need to get the important message out that, whether it is for cancer treatment or other life-saving treatment, every penny counts.
If the proposed reforms reward quality, pay pharmacists for their value added services and fully embed community pharmacists into the urgent care pathway, they will be welcome. However, we need to ensure they do what they are intended to do, and that we do not, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said, end up with what we have now.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Natascha Engel: I give advance notice that, after the next speech, we will have to drop the time limit for speeches to three minutes. Even then, things will be quite tight if Members use all their intervention time.

Phil Wilson: In my constituency, there are 22 pharmacies. Some 60% are not eligible for the pharmacy access scheme, which, I understand, is based on distance between pharmacies and does not take into consideration deprivation and other health issues. It is predicted that of the 22, six will close. In the Durham, Darlington and Tees area, there are 271 pharmacies, issuing 2.5 million prescriptions a month and covering a population of 1.2 million. The Government want to take £170 million out of community pharmacies, which is equivalent to £14,500 a pharmacy. That is a total of a third of a million pounds out of community pharmacies in my constituency or £4 million across the Durham, Darlington and Tees area.
A new pharmacy integration fund has also been announced. This was originally allocated £300 million over five years. I now believe that the figure will be £42 million over two years. The Government have admitted that these proposals in total will lead to the closure of 3,000 community pharmacies. Pharmacy closures will only place further strain on those pharmacies that remain open. More people will use GP surgeries and A&E departments when they need not do so. Pharmacies could be forced to scale back services, while being under increased pressure.
The proposal to encourage people to contact the 111 service for emergency referrals on repeat prescriptions, which will then be referred to a chemist, was described by one pharmacy in Trimdon in my constituency as “ludicrous” because
“It will place an extra burden on the 111 service, and ignores the fact most people who require an emergency supply of their regular medication will go to their local pharmacy who have their records, and who will bend over backwards to help. In the case of people from out of the area needing an emergency supply of regular medication in Trimdon this only happens around three or four times a year. Ultimately, the 111 service is designed to help people who do not know what is wrong with them, not to assist those who know exactly what is wrong with them and are already being treated for it.”
The Government’s impact assessment states:
“there is no reliable way of estimating the number of pharmacies that may close as a result of this policy”.
However, the figure of 3,000 has been mentioned and the question then arises: is that figure a minimum? Pharmacies offer important services to their local communities, the elderly, the disabled and those with long-term illness, and offer vital support to overstretched GPs and hospitals. I looked at the statistics: there are 11,700 community pharmacies and 1.6 million people visit a pharmacy every day. Some 79% of people have visited a pharmacy at least once in the last 12 months, with 75% of adults visiting the same pharmacy, and 2.7 million items are dispensed every day.
Pharmacies are increasingly seen as a referral mechanism to GPs for patients with possible early symptoms of cancer. Two in five of the pharmacies in my constituency may be protected—I say “may be”—but three out of the five will not be. They face an unsettled and uncertain future in an area with some of the worst health, deprivation and disability statistics in the country. More importantly, the tens of thousands of my constituents who use pharmacies will be affected the most. They will feel that uncertainty the most and will feel unsettled the most. With all that in mind, only this Government would introduce a strategy to close the pharmacies on which so many of my constituents rely.

Oliver Colvile: The first time I became involved in this area of policy was in the 1990s. I was working commercially for pharmacies on the Community Pharmacy Action Group resale price maintenance campaign. One of my very great friends who was very much involved in that campaign, Sharon Buckle, is on the English Pharmacy Board and has been incredibly helpful in providing me with advice. I am vice-chair of the all-party pharmacy group and the Government’s pharmacy champion, which is a great honour and privilege.
My concern is that we seem to be discussing buildings and pharmacies, rather than talking about how we can protect pharmacists. I understand that the Department of Health and Keith Ridge, the chief pharmaceutical officer, are very keen to ensure the pharmacists, the people who serve and have the expertise, are looked after, rather than the buildings. That is very important. We need to ensure there is significantly better integration between the NHS and pharmacies, including on summary care records, when the Government will deliver on decriminalisation for dispensing errors and so on.
Finally, if the likes of Boots will be expected to release their leases, could they kindly have a condition that those leases cannot be re-let to other pharmacies? What we do not need is to end up replacing one form of pharmacy with another. If that is not possible, it is very important that those leases are given to independent community pharmacies rather than the big boys.
I represent a constituency with real deprivation. There is an 11-year gap in life expectancy between one part of my constituency and another. I therefore know first-hand what the issues are. We need to ensure that pharmacies work more closely together, so they can work together on delivering medicines.

Graham Jones: As many colleagues have pointed out, not just today, but in previous Westminster Hall and other debates, cuts of £170 million to pharmacy funding will decimate NHS primary care. It could force up to 3,000 pharmacies to close their doors to the public. In Lancashire alone, 387 pharmacies are at risk. I am deeply concerned about that. It will put an intolerable amount of pressure on front-line NHS services. When we look at the evidence, we find that 25% of the 2 million people who normally seek advice from their community pharmacy would visit their GP instead if they could not get it from their pharmacy. Other NHS services, which are already facing sustained attack from the Health Secretary, will become even more stretched.
I am particularly concerned about the impact on innovative and pioneering models of primary care that are provided through pharmacies. My local pharmacy in Baxenden, for example, is a healthy living pharmacy, ensuring that its provision is localised and preventive. I believe that all pharmacies should look to achieve such added value. This tiered commissioning framework, of which healthy living pharmacies are part, has been praised by the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee for its successes in reducing smoking, alcoholism and obesity. The majority of users do not have to go elsewhere for their health advice; they can use their local pharmacy instead of their local GP. Indeed, 70% of people who visit pharmacies do not regularly access other healthcare services. The healthy living pharmacy framework should be rolled out across Lancashire and should be part of the primary care review.

Jim McMahon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the pharmacy access scheme is more about the Tories buying off their Back Benchers than delivering the services that he mentions?

Graham Jones: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which was also made by our Front-Bench spokesperson, who rightly observed that most of the cuts will fall in deprived areas, while the exemptions will be mostly in wealthy areas. The Government must address why they favour those who have the fewest health issues and are almost punishing those who face the greatest health challenges. The cuts will do precisely the opposite of what the Minister claims. The value-added local pharmacies in those areas will be undermined completely by the cuts. As a result, community centre provision in some of the most deprived areas might well be eroded, reduced or lost altogether. The personal relationship between patient and pharmacist will be lost, which brings me to my final point.
If these cuts go ahead, what will be the future of primary care? My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron) has stated on several occasions that an Amazon model of delivery could take the place of community-centred pharmacies. Remote warehouses with box shifters driven by profit are proliferating. They are unable to provide a localised service and are unwilling to carry out primary care. They could be a dangerous replacement for community pharmacies, and that is on top of the cuts that the Government are making. This is a double whammy. Instead of promoting a primary care model that includes pharmacies at the centre, we are undermining it with these cuts.
Pharmacies in my constituency have expressed concern about this trend. They inform me that some of the warehouse pharmacies have already used patients’ personal data for marketing purposes. I have seen evidence from a company called Pharmacy4U—a mail order company—of feigned official NHS letters targeting repeat prescription users, many of whom were vulnerable. In reality, these letters were switch approval forms. This is a worrying sign of things to come if the cuts go ahead. I urge the Government to think again.

Yasmin Qureshi: Last year, when the Government put out to consultation the proposed cuts to pharmacies, I went out to speak to many of the small pharmacists in my constituency—in Kearsley, Over Hulton, Little Lever, Farnworth, Deane and Daubhill. What they all said—most are individually-owned pharmacies—is that they do a number of things for which they are not paid. Completing all the pill boxes for the elderly and long-term unwell people is one example. We know that there are increasing numbers of old people, so there are a tremendous number of boxes to prepare every day and every week, yet they get paid nothing for doing that. People come to them to ask about various ailments and health issues, and the pharmacists often recommend non-prescription medications, thus saving enormous amounts of GPs’ time and, of course, helping to prevent people from going to A&E. On one hand, we might save a few hundred million pounds from the proposals, but on the other, expenses for GPs, A&E and hospitals will go up, so it is a completely false economy.
Such pharmacies also deliver the medication to many long-term unwell and elderly people. I am told by my pharmacists that they are often the only people whom such people ever see and talk to. Often people talk to their pharmacist about other health issues, and other minor ailments are dealt with. Pharmacists will contact the GPs or alert somebody in their surgeries to what is happening. The pharmacists are providing all these services, but they will not be able to do any of it if they face cuts, because they will not have the necessary financial resources.
Pharmacies provide a lot of advice, as I mentioned. The only people who will benefit from these cuts will be the big companies such as Boots and others, because they can buy their medication at wholesale prices. The NHS may pay them £20 per medication, but they have probably been able to buy that medication for £5, thus benefiting by £15. A small pharmacy will probably pay £20 and be paid £20, so it will make hardly any profits. As a result, most of the small pharmacies that are responsive to local needs will be forced to stop operating, and customers will have to travel further to find alternatives. It is possible that the only remaining pharmacies will be those owned by Boots and other big companies. I ask the Government to think again about their policy, because it will not save money, and it will do a disservice to people.
I thank the pharmacists in my constituency for all their work. Let me make a personal declaration. My mother, who is 84, lives near one of the nicest pharmacists in the area, who regularly provides the many different  types of medication that she takes and who looks after her. He is not an exception, however; many other pharmacists do the same for people.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Let me begin by thanking Greg Burke of County Durham & Darlington local pharmaceutical committee for his valiant efforts in bringing the issue of cuts in community pharmacies to my attention. I also thank him for arranging my visit to Bowburn pharmacy, where I met Phyllis Whitburn, Nigel Nimmo, Len Britten and Hieu Truong Van. The visit reinforced my view that community pharmacies are vital to our communities, and especially to those in the ex-mining villages in my constituency, where they often provide a lifeline. The Minister has said that many pharmacies are within a 10-minute walk of two or more others, but that is simply not the case in many parts of my constituency.
I had hoped that all the lobbying that took place earlier this year, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), would remind the Government of the excellent services that community pharmacies offer and how much money they ultimately save the NHS, and that that might persuade them to abandon the cuts agenda. It was therefore with great sadness that I listened to the Minister’s statement on 20 October, in which he outlined the cuts. No rationale for them was presented, and it seems odd that the Government have instigated them without waiting for the outcome of either the King’s Fund review or the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s review of community pharmacy services.
Let me also draw the Minister’s attention to the large body of research on community pharmacies that has been carried out by Durham University. It has established that they are very well placed to address health inequalities, that they are most prevalent and most used in the most disadvantaged areas, and, indeed, that 100% of people in most deprived areas could have access to one. It is very odd that the Government are cutting services that benefit those areas. The same point has also been made by the Local Government Association, the Pharmacists’ Defence Association and others. According to the LGA, the closure of community pharmacies could leave many isolated and vulnerable residents struggling to gain access to pharmacies, particularly in deprived and rural areas. The LGA has also drawn attention to the knock-on effect on local government services, which are suffering cuts as well.
The Minister ought to take up some of the points made in the PDA briefing that was sent to all of us before the debate. The Government should be thinking about regulating the wholesale margins, reviewing the margins of some of the larger companies, and reviewing the way in which community pharmacies and the pharmaceutical wholesale industry are organised. They should not be making these cuts in community pharmacy services.

Corri Wilson: We in Scotland recognise just how important community pharmacies are. They are part of the fabric of our local communities, providing crucial access to the NHS and   support for some of our most vulnerable people. In fact, the community pharmacy model that has been adopted in Scotland has been recognised by the Health Minister as one to aspire to, which makes the mess that the UK Government have made of community pharmacies all the more difficult to understand.
Community pharmacies in Scotland not only have a vital role in dispensing medicines, but provide other important services. Simply popping in to have their blood pressure checked can give people an early warning of other possible health concerns. The SNP in Scotland has a coherent vision for the pharmaceutical sector, and we want pharmacists to play a crucial role in the wider health team. Ensuring that pharmacists, including those who work in community pharmacies—as well as Community Pharmacy Scotland—are consulted is a key priority for the Scottish Government.
Unlike the UK Government, we would be looking to ensure that any decisions that would have a major impact on the industry were for the benefit of the industry as well as the patients. In contrast, the UK Government appear determined to alienate as many medical professionals as possible. Much of the Government’s argument for these cuts appears to be based on their objection to “clusters” of community pharmacies. Rather than take a planned approach to the spread of services and the levels of provision needed in specific areas, their solution seems to be to slash the funding and see who stays afloat.
When vital services are provided on a commercial model, it is disadvantaged communities that suffer the most. To take such an attitude to an entire industry at the same time as trying to get it on board with providing more of the services that free up time in GP surgeries and A&E departments suggests that an extremely short-term view is being taken to the provision of care. It also suggests a complete disregard to savings in the NHS in the long term.
It would seem from the rhetoric used by the Government on this issue that they know community pharmacies are part of the solution to England’s creaking health service, but they just cannot stop themselves treating them like they are part of the problem.

Jim Shannon: This issue is about a very important cog in the grand scheme of our health service. Some might look at pharmacies as small businesses who get most of their custom from the NHS, but that is not the case. The reason why they are funded is that they are vital organs in the body of the NHS. Local community pharmacies take some of the pressure from GP surgeries. Some 14.2 million people had to wait over a week to see their GP in 2015; without the minor injuries service, how many more people would be waiting that long? How much of the doctor’s time would be taken up with issues that could be handled by a pharmacist?
There are 549 registered pharmacies in Northern Ireland and 2,300 pharmacists. They dispense both medication and advice, and that advice is important. The widespread locations of community pharmacies across Northern Ireland, where people live, shop and work, means that they are readily accessible to the public. Each year community pharmacies in Northern Ireland safely dispense approximately 40 million prescription items, including through the repeat dispensing service.  They provide advice to help us look after and care for ourselves and help patients take their medicines more effectively by improving patient knowledge and adherence and use of their medicines. This service has initially been commissioned for patients living with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes, and it is hoped that it will be extended to other long-term conditions in the future. So the role of pharmacies can be even greater than it is at present.
The minor ailments service supports the use of the community pharmacy as the first point of call for health advice. Pharmacists can use their professional skills to provide advice and if necessary recommend appropriate treatment or refer to another healthcare professional. Other services include the smoking cessation service, which supports nearly 70% of quit attempts every year.
For constituencies such as Strangford which contain rural areas where GP surgeries are few and far between, the provision of a pharmacy is essential. If every mother with a young child takes an appointment with the doctor because the child has a cold and they are rightly worried, our surgeries, which prioritise child appointments, would never have time to check the lady with a small lump under her arm or the man who has had a problem with toileting needs, both of whom are too embarrassed to push for an appointment when everyone is too busy.
These cuts are too harsh. We need community pharmacists to play their vital role in order to allow GPs to focus on what they need to do. I say yes, make savings; yes, trim the fat if there is any; but do not ask for cuts that can only be achieved by cutting vital services. I support the Labour motion.

Julie Cooper: It is my pleasure to respond to this interesting debate. I was not feeling very well today so on my way here I called at my community pharmacy, and I am feeling much better now. This is a very important subject. I wish first to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) for his sterling work in standing up for community pharmacy, and to the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron) for ensuring that the contribution of pharmacy is always recognised.
I have to say that this subject is very dear to my heart. I worked with my husband, who is a pharmacist in community pharmacy, for 24 years. I must make it clear that I no longer own a community pharmacy, but I do have a clear understanding of the contribution that community pharmacies make to patients, communities and the wider NHS. Many members have spoken powerfully today about the pharmacies in their constituencies and how much they mean to the people they serve. We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods).
Make no mistake, community pharmacy is for many the gateway to the NHS, providing far more than prescriptions and paracetamol. As my hon. Friend the  Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) pointed out, it is a lifeline for many people. The Minister spoke last week about the need to move to a focus on quality and not just on the volume of scripts dispensed. He also spoke of the desirability of community pharmacies becoming an integrated part of the primary care team. I say to him that that has been happening for years. The fact that he does not know this is in itself proof that he needs to take his plans back to the drawing board.
The typical community pharmacy, whether it serves a rural or an urban population, provides a wide range of services to support the sick, the elderly and the disabled, together with a host of initiatives to promote health and wellbeing in the community. Community pharmacies have close working relationships with other members of the primary care teams, including GPs. Of all those health professionals, the community pharmacist, who employs a no-appointment-necessary approach, is the most accessible and often provides the only continuity of care in a health service that is struggling to recruit and retain staff.
On the subject of NHS staff, the promise of more than 1,000 additional pharmacists in GPs’ surgeries is a red herring. It is a separate issue and will do nothing to mitigate the loss of local community pharmacies. The Minister spoke last week of the need for pharmacists to move to a more clinical approach to healthcare. Again I say to him that that has been happening for years. All community pharmacies have consulting areas where patients can speak privately. They also provide a perfect space for the provision of a variety of important services. There is an ever-expanding list of services, which a number of Members have described in their speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) mentioned the fact that pharmacists often go above and beyond the call of duty, sometimes delivering prescriptions at 8.30 in the evening. I well recognise that situation. The list is limited only by the Government’s unwillingness to engage and the clinical commissioning groups’ lack of funding to commission services.
Let me make it clear that community pharmacies, far from being a costly drain on NHS resources, actually save the NHS money through a variety of schemes, some of which have been mentioned today. The minor ailments service is already available in some areas, and I welcome the Minister’s suggestion that it will have a full roll-out. Medication use reviews carried out in the pharmacy often identify medicines that are routinely ordered but are no longer taken, and wasteful stockpiling of such items can therefore be avoided. In addition to the specific services, every prescription item dispensed presents the opportunity for a productive health intervention. Given that the average community pharmacy dispenses thousands of prescriptions each month, the potential impact is enormous and the professional advice of the pharmacist is undoubtedly invaluable in the promotion of health and wellbeing. The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) rightly identified the prevention work that pharmacists do, and mentioned the fact that the promotion of health and wellbeing can reduce demand on the NHS overall.
Despite statements to the contrary, community pharmacies have been making substantial efficiency savings in recent years. The vice-chair of the all-party  group, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), mentioned a 40% increase in funding over the past 10 years, but he omitted to mention that prescription numbers have increased by 50% during the same period and that pharmacy funding has been static for the past two years.
Under the Government’s current plans, pharmacies would have to implement a year’s worth of cuts in four months with only six weeks’ notice. As someone with considerable experience of community pharmacy, I know that the plans will force the closure of many pharmacies and a service reduction in others. I do not know how many will close and neither does the Minister. The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) suggested that the number could be as high as 3,000, and I can assure the Minister it will not be the large pharmacy chains that close but the small independents, the owners of many of which have put their heart and soul into providing an excellent service to the community.
Those that do not close will reduce services. An NPA survey of 250 pharmacies found that 76% are likely to reduce services from April 2017 if the cuts go ahead. The assessment of the financial impact of the closures is flawed and provides no evidence to support the Department of Health’s claim that access to services will not be compromised. It is clear that community pharmacies satisfy an ever-growing demand for services. When they close, that demand will not just disappear. Where will all the patients go? Some will pack out their GP surgery and others will head straight to A&E. The NHS is already in the throes of a staffing and funding crisis. Forcing community pharmacies to cut back services and close down is short-sighted in the extreme and could be catastrophic in the long term.
The Minister has frowned on the growth of pharmacy clusters, but he really needs to understand that clusters have grown, often in the most deprived areas, in response to considerable demand. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West outlined examples of such areas of deprivation. Is the Minister really suggesting that forcing the closure of such pharmacies is the most effective way to reduce demand for healthcare in deprived communities? The Minister has got this wrong. The proposals on the table are short-sighted and will do more harm than good. They will have a negative impact on patient care and will force extra demand on already stretched GP surgeries and hospitals. The proposals will not save money. They will not reduce the number of patients with long-term conditions or the number of medicines they require.
It is right to review the situation. I agree with the Government Members who said that it is right to examine the funding issues, but instead of forcing through damaging changes to a service that the Government clearly do not understand, I ask the Minister to listen to pharmacists and sit down with them to discuss how pharmacies can help to ease the burden on the wider NHS in a planned and cost-effective way. I ask the Minister to listen to his Conservative colleagues who spoke against these simplistic cuts, which have not been properly planned. I ask him to recognise that the access scheme will do little to protect the long-term future of urban or rural community pharmacies.
The Government have shown time and again an unwillingness to listen to professionals. I urge the Minister to listen to community pharmacists, to the pleas of  Members and to people across the country, and to rethink the funding cut. I ask him to sit down with pharmacists and their representatives and work with them to develop and extend services that will take the burden off GPs and off the NHS. I ask that he do so now before he makes a decision that will devastate a whole sector and bring even more pressure to bear on our overstretched health service. I ask Members to support the motion.

Philip Dunne: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper). I was interested to learn of her personal experience in the sector. She gave a well-informed speech that was in stark contrast to that of her boss, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). She was generous to contributions from Opposition Members, but it is only fair to say that Members on both sides of the House expressed considerable support for the work done by community pharmacies up and down the country. There is unanimity in the House on the importance of not only pharmacies’ current work, but their increasing role in supporting the NHS and providing services in future.
I am grateful for the contributions made today by 24 hon. Members, in addition to the Front-Bench speakers. I wish to start my remarks by referring to the impact that these proposals will actually have on the typical pharmacy, because I am sorry to say that there has been considerable confusion, mostly among Opposition Members, about what the proposals deliver. The average pharmacy will see a reduction in taxpayer subsidy of £16,000 a year. The largest element of that is a reduction in the establishment payment, which is a fixed payment of between £23,000 and £25,000 that most pharmacies receive just for being there. It will be reduced by 20% from 1 December, which equates to a reduction of just over £400 per month, or £100 a week. From April, it will decrease by a further £400 per month, to £200 a week. Those are not huge reductions for private businesses. This element is a 40% reduction in the only fixed taxpayer subsidy that I am aware of that is paid to private businesses up and down retail high streets in England.
Meanwhile, pharmacies will still receive £1.13 for every prescription item they dispense, with the average pharmacy dispensing 87,000 items a year, as was said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who is, sadly, not in her place.

Luciana Berger: I am here.

Philip Dunne: Oh, she is—I apologise. We are also introducing a new quality payment scheme worth up to £6,400 a year, so that the amount of NHS funding community pharmacies will be receiving will remain very significant.
In addition to payments from the NHS, pharmacies can earn extra income from a range of sources other than dispensing fees. About half the clinical commissioning groups in England already commission minor ailment services from pharmacies. These services include: flu vaccinations, which are topical today; stop-smoking schemes, which were topical last month, in Stoptober; and emergency hormonal contraception. All of those provide an additional source of income for community  pharmacies. I believe the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) referred to healthy living pharmacies, and they will now qualify for this new quality payment, whereas they have not in the past—I hope he will welcome that. The Local Government Association’s briefing ahead of this debate echoed that fact, saying that
“there are significant opportunities for councils to commission public health services from community pharmacies as a key element of their health improvement strategies.”
In addition to those two alternative sources from NHS and non-NHS public bodies, in many cases pharmacies get a whole section of private sector income from non-publicly funded elements. That has not been referred to at all, but it is a significant element in the profitability of many pharmacies.
The Government’s vision in these reforms is to bring pharmacy into the heart of the NHS. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Leicester South gave what appears, from his early outings at the Dispatch Box, to be becoming a trademark speech in his new role, seeking to scare the public about the proposals without demonstrating a genuine understanding of how community pharmacies are funded or owned, or of what is proposed by the measures. Since 2005-06, there has been an 18% increase in the number of pharmacies, so that today some 1,800 more operate in England than did so 10 years ago. Next year, pharmacies in England will receive £2.6 billion in funding from the NHS. NHS England supports the developments that we are proposing. The suggestion is that we will decimate NHS services because we will push a large number of people out of community pharmacies to their GP, but that is not the belief of NHS England. This is not about pharmacy closures—the point made by almost every Opposition Member who spoke—but about securing better value from the funding that we provide, modernising the way in which we do it so that pharmacies are not the only sector in the country that receives direct taxpayer subsidy for opening premises on the high street, and encouraging them, through increasing payments in the future, to provide more services to help patients in every community.
Community pharmacies are already much more than the place to which we go to get our medicines. They are an essential front-line service, providing care direct to patients and increasingly advising on a wide range of public health issues, for which, as I have indicated, they are paid separately from their dispensing fees. In doing so, they can relieve, and are relieving, pressures on other parts of the NHS.
Our package of reforms are about advancing that agenda, by rewarding quality for the first time, and moving to an enhanced role for the community pharmacy network in providing value-added services, as well as dispensing prescriptions. Yes, it does include making efficiencies in the way that these pharmacies are funded—I am talking about a reduction of £200 a week from next April—but those savings can be made within community pharmacies without compromising the quality of services or the public’s access to them. A key element of our proposals is that we will protect those pharmacies on which communities depend the most through the pharmacy access scheme, which has been supported by many hon. Members. A review of eligibility will assess the impact on those pharmacies in 20% of the most deprived areas, close to the one-mile test. That review opened yesterday and lasts for six weeks.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) referred to the pharmacy access scheme. He admitted that, by his calculation, 40% of the pharmacies in his constituency will benefit from the scheme. I can update him on that. Nine out of the 20 pharmacies—or 45%—in his constituency will benefit. Indeed, his constituency will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of this scheme.
In summary, the reforms are what the NHS needs and what patients and taxpayers expect. I am confident that we will see a community pharmacy sector that is more efficient and better integrated with the rest of the healthcare system and delivering better services for patients as a result. I urge colleagues to support the amendment to this motion.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
The House divided:
Ayes 211, Noes 305.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
Question agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that community pharmacies are valued assets that offer face-to-face healthcare advice which relieves pressure on other NHS services; welcomes the Government’s proposals to further integrate community pharmacy into the NHS, including through the Pharmacy Integration Fund, and make better use of pharmacists’ clinical expertise, including investing £112 million to deliver a further 1,500 pharmacists in general practice by 2020; supports the need to reform the funding system to ensure better value for the taxpayer; and welcomes the establishment of a Pharmacy Access Scheme which will ensure all patients in all parts of the country continue to enjoy good access to a local community pharmacy.

Rachael Maskell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs given notice of whether she intends to make a statement to this House in the light of today’s High Court judgment, which found against the Government for the second time on the matter of being in breach of air quality standards and putting in place an inadequate air quality plan? I am sure that you will appreciate the level of interest in the outcome of those proceedings, given that between 40,000 and 50,000 people in our country die prematurely each year as a direct consequence of the Government’s failure to reach those air quality standards.

Eleanor Laing: I understand the hon. Lady’s concern about the matter and thank her for raising it, but she and her colleagues will understand that it is not a matter for the Chair. If she wishes a Minister to come to the House, the correct procedure is to submit a request for an urgent question. I am sure that if the hon. Lady believes that she has sufficient grounds for asking for an urgent question, she will submit a request and Mr Speaker will give it due consideration.

Police Officer Safety

Eleanor Laing: I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Diane Abbott: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the estimated 23,000 assaults on police officers in England and Wales each year; and calls on the Government to implement statutory guidance on sentencing uniformly across the country which reflects the seriousness of the issue, to accurately record the number of assaults on police officers in England and Wales and, noting the fall in numbers of police officers by 20,000 since 2010, to ensure that police officer numbers and funding are not cut further.
The Opposition have called for this debate because the question of assaults on the police is an important matter that has received too little attention, and we are happy to begin to correct that. For too long, police victims of violence have felt like second-class victims, but there is no more important duty than their duty to protect our citizens, and there is a social contract between the public and police officers, which can be summarised as follows: society as a whole confers on policemen the unique powers of detection, prevention, arrest and detention in order to uphold the rule of law and all our rights; in return, police officers are entitled to all reasonable co-operation from the public, free from violence and the threat of violence. Any assault on any police officer is a breach of that social contract and an injury to all of us.

Ben Bradshaw: Is my hon. Friend surprised to learn that, in relatively peaceful Devon and Cornwall, there were 267 assaults on the police in the last year, more than doubling the associated costs in one year? Does she agree that one of the reasons that the police and other services are so vulnerable is that, because of cuts, they are increasingly operating on their own and not in pairs?

Diane Abbott: I thank my right hon. Friend for his important intervention. I agree with him and will come to cuts in police numbers later.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Does my hon. Friend agree that another problem is that we are simply not robust enough in collecting data on the number of assaults on police, and that we need to do that in order to find a solution?

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I will come to the question of data later.
I must acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who raised this issue in an earlier debate and has arranged for representatives of the Police Federation to be here today.
Sadly, the police are not the only group of dedicated public service workers who are coming under physical attack. Violence against NHS staff has rocketed in the past five years, with 186 attacks on doctors, nurses and paramedics every day.

Rob Flello: Fire crews, which attend emergencies and save people’s lives, are also coming under attack. It is outrageous that our police, fire and emergency ambulance services, which are all on the frontline, are being discussed not because of the positive work that they do, but because people think that it is fair game to attack them.

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend must be clairvoyant, because the next thing I was going to say was that fire crews in the UK have come under attack 1,000 times in the past two years, and attacks on ambulance workers are also on the rise. Although the main purpose of this debate is to discuss violence against the police, I could not let it pass without referring to other blue-light services with similar issues. All assaults on the police are unacceptable, and we will discuss how to address them. The sad thing is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) said, there is no clear, reliable evidence of the number of assaults on the police, because the data are still recorded in a haphazard and irregular fashion.

Maria Eagle: On Merseyside, the most recent figures equate to almost 16% of the entire force being subjected to an attack in one year. Not all those attacks would have resulted in injury, but very many of them did. Does my hon. Friend think that it is an urgent matter for the Government to collect proper statistics on such assaults?

Diane Abbott: It is indeed urgent that the Government collect proper statistics. We need reliable, uniform data so that we are clear about the extent of the problem, the trends over time and the differences between forces. To address a problem, it is first necessary to identify it correctly.
There is a further point in relation to the collection of data. Even without data that are as robust as we would like on assaults, there are things that we could do now to address violence against the police to the benefit of the police force and for the reassurance of the public. One of those things is the adoption of body-worn cameras by all police officers who come into contact with the public. I will return to that subject later.

Gavin Robinson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Diane Abbott: I will make a little more progress. There were 9,055 recorded assaults on police officers in 2015, and the number of convictions was 7,629. That represents an increase on the 2014 figures, but the 2014 total was the lowest that it had been for a number of years. However, according to the Home Office there were 23,000 assaults on police officers in 2015-16, including assault without injury and including the British Transport police. There are big discrepancies in those data. No one claims—I do not imagine that the Minister will do so—that the data are wholly reliable. Obviously, we hope that the latest rise in assaults may possibly be a consequence of higher levels of reporting, and that the long-term downward trend will resume. The data on assaults without injury to a constable are more robust, because there is more uniformity in their collection across forces. They have fallen over the long term, even though there was a rise last year. It would be surprising if assaults without injury fell consistently, but assaults resulting in injury were on the rise.
One thing we can be sure of is that the data need to be more reliable and robust. There is a clear and simple reform that we can introduce. We can insist that all police forces, working with the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics, provide the highest quality data on assaults on the police. It is a serious matter, and it needs to be taken seriously.

Jack Dromey: May I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for her outstanding work in bringing this debate to the Floor of the House of Commons? In the West Midlands police service, where the statistics are sound, 2,000 police officers have gone, violent crime is up by 20% and three police officers a day are being assaulted. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) agree that the price being paid, as a consequence of Government cuts, for the thin blue line becoming ever thinner, is not just putting the public at risk—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The point about interventions is that they are meant to be short. We have a very large number of people who want to make speeches this afternoon. If people make interventions, it prevents other people from making speeches. May I also point out that if someone intervenes in this debate, it is expected that they will remain in the Chamber for most of the debate and be here for the wind-ups? I am not looking particularly at the hon. Gentleman, who is an extremely well-behaved Member of Parliament, but I am just pointing out that it is extremely discourteous to take up time in a very short debate by making a long intervention and then to leave. Nor am I criticising the hon. Lady, who is perfectly right to take interventions because that is what makes the debate interesting.

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is a correlation between cuts in police numbers, the rising tide of crime and the increasing number of assaults on police officers. Whatever the precise quantum of the data on assaults and whatever the precise trends over time, we have a duty to foster the social contract between the police and the public—I mentioned that at the beginning of my remarks—and to protect them both.
I want to tell the House about the very important eight-point plan recently adopted by the Metropolitan police. It reflects an initiative by the Hampshire Police Federation, and the Met has called it Operation Hampshire. We hope that this very important plan will be rolled out across all police forces. The Met’s plan states that a member of the operational command unit’s senior leadership team should be informed of all assaults; a MetAir form should be filled in for every assault; the total victim care and victim codes of practice should apply to officers and staff, just as they do to the public; officers should not investigate their own assault; officers should not write their own statements; the best evidence must be presented; learning from each assault should be captured; and being assaulted should not be seen as part of the job. It is excellent that the Met has adopted this plan, and I hope it will be rolled out in every police force around the country.
In the light of that plan, I am interested in the new developments with body-worn cameras for police officers. The Metropolitan police, under the leadership of  Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe and my former right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has embarked on a programme of rolling out body-worn video across the London boroughs. Where that has been trialled elsewhere, there has been a sharp reduction in the number of complaints against the police. There can be little doubt that the presence of a camera will lead to an improvement in behaviour by all parties in what are often stressful or even dangerous incidents. The police can be reassured that any assailant will be recorded, and of course members of the public should be reassured that the actions of the police officer are also being recorded.
As a party, we believe in investment, not austerity. We believe that capital investment in our policing will improve it. Investment in body-worn cameras will save money by reducing the number of complaints against the police and the costs of evidence collection. There is of course a need for safeguards on the use of body-worn cameras—in relation to civil liberties, such as whether their use should be compulsory, and who has access to what is filmed—but the principle is correct. Body-worn video leads to better policing and fewer complaints against the police.
There have been several studies on the use of body-worn cameras, and I will give a flavour of some of the results. One US study showed a 50% reduction in the police use of force. A UK study showed greater levels of prosecution in cases of domestic violence. In a Scottish study, there was a higher incidence of early guilty pleas. In many cases, there has been a reduction in the number of complaints against the police, while in many others, there has been a lower level of assaults against the police. That is why we are raising this question in this important debate. We need better processes and procedures—that is what the Metropolitan police is seeking to introduce—but we need capital investment, in the Met and in police forces up and down the country, in things such as body-worn cameras. [Interruption.] This is not humorous; this about police officer safety and the public being reassured that Ministers are doing everything they can to keep our police officers safe.
The most recent figures show that the number of assaults on police is falling, but the fact is that there are increasingly fewer police to be assaulted or to protect us. Home Office statistics show that there were 19,700 fewer police officers by March this year than there were when the coalition came to office in 2010. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said, the numbers are falling in the west midlands. Police officer numbers have fallen every year under the coalition and under this Government: one in seven police officers have been lost. I recently met Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe of the Metropolitan police, who told me that, at this point, the cuts imposed by this Government have largely been absorbed by a reduction in non-police staff, selling old police stations and asset shortfalls. Now, however, for the first time, the biggest police force in the country is looking at a reduction in police numbers. It seems to the Opposition that under this Government the thin blue line keeps getting thinner.
In cases of serious assault involving injuries to police officers and in the extremely rare incidents of firearms or deadly weapons being used against officers, we believe that the culprits should expect the stiffest sentences.
We believe that the issue of assaults on police officers is very serious. It needs to be taken seriously, including in the gathering and collating of reliable data that are consistent across all police forces. While that is in progress, we should address measures that will tackle such assaults now, such as the introduction of body-worn cameras across all police forces in England and Wales, and encourage our colleagues in the devolved Assemblies to do the same.
Before I conclude my remarks, I congratulate the chair of the Hampshire Police Federation, John Apter, on his work. I am sure that we will not always agree, but his campaigning on the issue of violence against the police deserves the commendation of the whole House. We need to protect the protectors. The Opposition are glad to have brought this issue to the Floor of the House and we urge Ministers to consider some of the measures that I have suggested.

Brandon Lewis: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “notes” to the end of the Question and add:
“that any assault on a police officer is unacceptable and welcomes the work of the independent Sentencing Council in producing guidelines that specifically highlight the increased seriousness of an offence committed against anyone providing a public service; further welcomes the Government’s commitment to accurately record the number of assaults on police officers in England and Wales to better understand the scale of this issue; and further notes that the Government has protected police spending in real terms over the Spending Review period.”
I welcome the opportunity to debate such an important subject as police safety. I join the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and others in congratulating the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on the work she has done. I am sure that the Adjournment debate on this subject played a part in bringing about this debate. It is important to raise this issue, and she is right to stand up for her constituency force.
As I told the House in a recent debate on police assaults, called by the hon. Member for Halifax, this is an area that I have great concern about. I am determined that we have a clear position that unites us across the House. I want to ensure that we are doing all that we can to support front-line police officers and police staff, as well as the public sector more generally. There needs to be a clear message that assaults on and bad behaviour towards people who are serving the public is unacceptable in any form.
I was delighted a few weeks ago to join the Home Secretary in celebrating achievements in all areas of policing at the annual Ferrers awards, which celebrate the achievements of special constables, cadets and the whole police volunteer family. Along with the police bravery awards, they are undoubtedly among the highlights of the policing calendar. Both events give us the chance to pay tribute to the brave men and women and the cadets for all they do, whether in a voluntary capacity or as full police officers and staff, day in, day out, to keep our country and our residents safe.
Just last night, I attended a police training exercise in Wiltshire, where I saw at first hand how officers prepare to deal with attacks against them by protesters. I was hugely impressed by the way in which officers handled themselves in fast-paced scenarios based on spontaneous  public order situations and was struck by the level they must train to, to be ready for the kind of attack that can come upon them from members of the public. It was a stark reminder of the way in which they put themselves at risk every day for us.

Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in such situations, police dogs and horses are sometimes attacked and that police officers can be bitten and spat at? Does he agree that people who spit at and bite police officers should be automatically given blood tests to check whether they have transmittable diseases and that there should be sanctions for people who attack police dogs and horses?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman’s point relates to something that may be considered by the Backbench Business Committee as part of the petitions process following the petition on Finn’s law. I am keen to meet the organiser of that for a conversation. Any kind of assault on police officers or on the animals and people who work with them is completely unacceptable. He mentioned spitting and there has been coverage recently of the view that the Mayor of London has taken on that. I think that any such behaviour is completely unacceptable.
I have talked quite a lot in recent speeches about the value we should place on policing as a profession. It should attract not just the bold and the brave but the brightest and the best. The new recruits taking their first steps in policing following the tremendous recent recruitment drive made possible by this Government are doing so at an exciting time.
I am afraid the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) got her figures a little confused in a few areas. I suggest that she look at the difference between recorded crime and actual crime, and crime and assaults against police officers rather than overall crime—and indeed the figures on police funding, which I will come to directly in a minute, where I am afraid her facts were a little off.
The crime survey of England and Wales shows that crime is down by more than a quarter. It is at its lowest level since that independent survey began some 35 years ago. But we recognise that crime is changing. Although this Government have always been clear that we do not seek to run policing, nor to decide from the centre how many officers are needed in Hackney or in Halifax, we want to make sure we are playing our part in helping the police to do their job. Where it is right for Government to act, we will, and have done so.

Victoria Borwick: I want to raise the increase in assaults on police officers at the Notting Hill carnival. What can the Minister do to make that event safe for our good thin line, which works so hard at it?

Brandon Lewis: Public events such as that one pose an extra challenge for our police forces. That is the exactly the kind of event I was seeing police officers, from a number of areas, training for last night. That training has been going on over the past few weeks, so if the people of Wiltshire have been seeing flashing blue lights recently they do not have to panic—they were for training exercises. It is important that we make sure the police have the support and funding they need to continue  not just the recruitment drives to make sure their forces are at the right level—London is at the right level, as, in effect, the highest funded police force in the country—but that sort of training. The College of Policing has a hugely important part to play, which I will come to in a moment. Changes in crime bring with them a need for officers who can adapt—who have up-to-date skills and the energy and innovation to keep renewing them, who are committed to protecting the most vulnerable in our society, who can follow criminals online as well as they can on our streets and who put victims at the heart of what they do.
I do not underestimate the job of our police forces. They are widely and rightly acknowledged as the best in the world. Policing is a hugely challenging career. Police officers will see more than most people would ever wish to. It is clearly not a job for the fainthearted; it needs strength, resilience and a commitment to making our society a better and safer place. But that does not mean that getting assaulted in the workplace is part of the deal or that being abused or hurt while doing the job should be part of the cost of doing business as a police officer. It is not and must not be.
Only this morning, a police officer was seriously injured after an incident in Lancashire. My thoughts—and, I hope, those of the whole House—are with the officer involved and his family. Just yesterday, it was reported that officers were attacked with fireworks by a group of youths in north London. That incident is obviously now being investigated by the police.

Vernon Coaker: The Minister has just raised a really interesting point—namely, attacks by youths. Will he comment on the fact that sentencing guidelines with respect to aggravated offences for assaults on police officers do not apply to young people under the age of 18?

Brandon Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will come to sentencing in a few moments.
Those kinds of assaults, and assaults of any kind, are unacceptable at all levels. Unfortunately, they happen in all parts of the country: whether in Worcester, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire or Warwickshire, there have been examples in just the past few months of assaults that people should not have to put up with and we should not tolerate as a country. Let me be very clear, then, that assaulting a police officer is completely unacceptable, and anyone found guilty should expect to face the full force of the law.
I assure the hon. Members for Hackney North and Stoke Newington and for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) that tough penalties are available to the courts for those who assault police officers. Sentencing guidelines rightly provide for assault on a police officer to be treated more severely in appropriate cases. I note the hon. Gentleman’s point about youths, and I will touch on that in a moment. However, it is right that we remember that courts are independent and must have discretion to take account of all the circumstances of each case in determining an appropriate sentence.

John Woodcock: Why, if there is no discretion in relation to victims of knife crime, does the Minister believe the police deserve less protection than that?

Brandon Lewis: I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that the point I am making is that the police deserve our protection and that the sentencing is in place to ensure they have the right protection. Sentencing is not only about protection, but ensuring people who commit an unacceptable offence against a public servant feel the full force of the law. I will come on to that in a bit more detail.

Andy Burnham: I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity and fine words, but there is a gap between them and the reality. Today, I spoke to Bryn Hughes, the father of Nicola Hughes, who, as the Minister will know, was murdered in Greater Manchester a couple of years ago. I do not know if he has seen the Daily Mirror today, but the headline is “Cop killer’s life of luxury behind bars”. What message does he think that sends out to people who commit these appalling acts against police officers? I do not doubt his sincerity, but he needs to act on the reality, which is that those people are not being treated harshly enough.

Brandon Lewis: I will hold my hands up and say I have not read the Daily Mirror today. I appreciate that that might be a shock to the right hon. Gentleman, and I will make sure I read it later. That offender is in prison. I am happy to look at an individual case and talk to colleagues at the Ministry of Justice about what is happening in that prison, if he thinks that there is an issue, but it is clear that the offender went to prison and it is right that people face the full force of the law. I was slightly surprised by comments made by the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). If the right hon. Gentleman speaks later, perhaps he could outline why the data she referred to as being haphazard were not dealt with in 13 years of Labour government. I will come on to that in more detail in a moment.
We will continue to provide the Sentencing Council with data and evidence on assaults on police officers, as the council reviews its guidelines. We need to better understand the circumstances surrounding assaults. The College of Policing has provided financial support to fund a project, as the hon. Lady rightly outlined, led by Hampshire police to gather and analyse a sample of internal records of assaults against officers. I am working with ministerial colleagues across the Government, such as the Solicitor General, on a range of these issues to ensure that individuals are appropriately prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I fully agree that we need better data to help us to understand the scale of assaults on police officers. We have been working for some time to improve the numbers available.

David Hanson: The Minister mentions 13 years of Labour government. When Labour left office, there were 143,734 officers. There are now 124,000 officers. I should know that because I was the Police Minister in the last Labour Government. I will tell him this, too, while I am on my feet. Under the Labour Government, body cameras were trialled and introduced, with a plan for them to be rolled out in full. I know that, because I was the Police Minister in the last year of that Labour Government. Why do we not have body cameras on all officers, when the plans were there in 2009 to achieve that objective?

Brandon Lewis: I will come on to body cameras in a moment, but I can only confirm what the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington said, which is that the data are not there. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman and other Labour Ministers were doing in not collecting the data, but I will come on to that.

David Hanson: Will the Minister give way?

Brandon Lewis: I will finish answering the right hon. Gentleman’s question. He can stand up all he likes, but I will finish answering his question whether he likes it or not.
As a first step, we published provisional statistics on officer assaults in July, despite the limitations of the data. The figures indicated that there were an estimated 23,000 assaults on officers across all forces in 2015-16. The data also indicated that nearly 8,000 of those assaults involved injury reported by officers, with 270 reported by police community support officers. On the right hon. Gentleman’s initial point, he might be right about the police numbers, but he has to accept that crime is down since 2010, when he left office.

David Hanson: The Minister should know, in his role, that policing is not just about crime. Policing is about public order. Policing is about flooding. Policing is about dealing with public issues on the streets with people who are alcohol-intoxicated but have not yet committed a crime. Policing is not just about solving criminal activity. If there are fewer police on our streets, that is more dangerous, particularly if shifts are not working double-manned because of the cut in numbers.

Brandon Lewis: Crime is down; the police are working more efficiently and effectively; they are finding new and different ways to work. That is a good thing, and I think the police should feel proud of their work.

Jack Dromey: rose—

Brandon Lewis: Let me make a bit of progress before taking some more interventions.
We are publishing these provisional statistics because it is important to shine a spotlight on this issue and help to encourage the sort of discussion we are having here today. However, to improve the accuracy of these data, the Home Office has continued to work with police forces to build on this work, and I can announce that from next year we are asking police forces to provide data on the number of assaults with injury on a police officer as part of their recorded crime data. Creating this new crime classification is an important step in providing a more complete picture of assaults experienced by police officers. This additional information will help chief officers to understand what is happening in their forces and to protect their officers and staff.

Desmond Swayne: My right hon. Friend will know that here in Westminster we are often accustomed to seeing police officers dressed rather as we would have expected Jack Warner to dress in Dock Green. However, what I think is encouraging is that when we come across police officers out in Hampshire, for example, we find them dressed and protected against the very assaults to which my right hon. Friend has referred. That is vital.

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, which goes part of the way to answer an earlier point: it is important that we do not control policing centrally; we should resist the urge to centralise everything on the assumption that we know best. It is for local police forces and local chief constables to know their areas best and to look at what they need to do with their police forces for the benefit of their community and indeed their staff.
It is the responsibility of chief constables, as employers, to keep their workforce safe. In that aim, we fully support their making best use of new technology, wherever possible. Although it is an operational decision for chief officers, the use of body-worn video can be a powerful tool. As rightly outlined by the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington—we do not often agree, but we agree on this—it can provide reassurance to both the police and indeed the public about the way in which both parties are working and acting.
In this vital task of keeping their workforce safe, chief constables are held to account by their democratically elected police and crime commissioners, and supported by the College of Policing, which sets the standards that the chief constables are charged with implementing. That is why I have written today to Chief Constable Sara Thornton, the chair of the National Police Chiefs Council, to encourage forces to adopt the new crime classification as soon as possible. In my letter, I have taken the opportunity to stress the importance that this Government place on police officer safety, as I did in my conversation with her earlier today.

Jack Dromey: Will the Minister for Policing put right what he said a few moments ago? It is not true that crime is falling; crime is changing. The Office for National Statistics includes online fraud and cybercrime in its figures. The figures are clear: crime is near doubling on the one hand, at a time when the police service is being cut by 20,000 on the other hand. This is the legacy of the Prime Minister from when she was Home Secretary.

Brandon Lewis: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not consciously get something wrong, so let me suggest that he look again at the facts. He is completely wrong. The ONS is for the first time publishing the figures on cybercrime. This is not extra crime; it is crime that has never been published in the figures before. I have to tell hon. and right hon. Members that recorded crime going up is a good thing, showing that the public are gaining more confidence in reporting crime. The reporting of crime is getting better, but actual crime is down since 2010.

Yvette Cooper: I apologise to both Front-Bench teams, as I will miss their closing speeches on account of my son’s parents’ evening. I would like to press the Minister on what the Government are doing about body-worn cameras. Given the evidence that such cameras not only reduce the incidence of assaults on police officers about which we are all so concerned, but improve detection and make for a better response to victims of crime, and in light of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that plans were in place to try to roll out the provision, what is going to be done now and how fast will it be rolled out everywhere?

Brandon Lewis: I agree with the right hon. Lady, in that I believe body-worn cameras could be a vital tool, providing a good example of a technology that can help. However, it is a matter for the police and crime commissioners and chief constables to decide what is right locally. We do not run policing from the Home Office. Although the transformation fund comes from the Home Office, and is enabling police forces, chief constables and police and crime commissioners to work together closely on IT development for the future, it is for them to decide how to do that, and how to spread the fund and share best practice.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I will take some more interventions in a few moments.
I welcome the work that is being led by chief officers, and by the College of Policing under the leadership of Deputy Chief Constable Andy Rhodes, to consider the broader health and wellbeing of officers who are undertaking a stressful and demanding job on a daily basis. It is encouraging to note that all forces have signed up to the workplace wellbeing charter, and to hear about DCC Rhodes’s work with the charity Mind to give officers better access to the care that they need. Last week I was delighted to meet Gill Scott-Moore, chief executive officer of the Police Dependants’ Trust, to discuss, among other things, the mental health and wellbeing of police officers. Home Office officials will continue to work with those organisations and with the Department of Health, and to consider what more we can do.
There has already been a great deal of talk about resources today. I am proud of the Government’s record on tackling the deficit, and I am clear about the fact that policing has its role to play in meeting that challenge. I remind the House that in 2016-17—notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington may believe—police spending has been protected, and no police and crime commissioners who maximised their precepts have seen a reduction in their cash funding. That is a good deal for policing. Moreover, on top of that protection of direct resource funding for PCCs, counter-terrorism police funding increased in real terms to £670 million in 2016-17, and transformation funding provides an opportunity to invest in digitalisation, a diverse and flexible workforce, and new and more efficient capabilities to tackle cybercrime and other emerging crimes and threats. Ultimately, all decisions about local policing resources and roles are for chief constables, held to account by their directly accountable police and crime commissioners.

Wes Streeting: I commend the Minister for telling us that the funding situation is great while keeping a straight face—it is an admirable performance—but how can he possibly square that with the fact that chief constables, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, borough commanders and the Mayor of London all agree that funding and resources are the key challenge to tackling street crime and the other crimes about which my constituents complain?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has raised a key point. First, we have protected funding in real, cash terms, as is clear from the spending review, so if PCCs are using their precepts, they have that opportunity.  Indeed, in certain areas we have increased funding. What really matters is not the tired old debate about officer numbers, much as some people may want to engage in it. What people should be thinking about is the way in which officers, staff and volunteers are deployed, and the results of that approach are showing in the fall in crime that has been taking place since 2010.

David Hanson: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very keen to intervene again. I look forward to the speech that he is bound to make later this evening.
Chief officers also have their sights set firmly on how effectively they are using their resources. We should, I think, be focusing on what the police are doing with their time. The proportion of officers in front-line roles has increased across England and Wales since 2010 to 93% in March 2016, and more than 50% of all police officers now work in local policing functions. We have seen forces across the country collaborating to make savings and pooling resources to improve effectiveness without sacrificing local accountability and identity, and they should be proud of having done that.

Lilian Greenwood: Does the Minister not recognise the following description? According to the Nottinghamshire Police Federation, officers
“are more often on their own dealing with these situations with back up miles away and with no TASER resources anywhere near them”.
Is that not the reality? Front-line police officers are trying to deal with things, but they do not have sufficient numbers to be properly backed up.

Brandon Lewis: Obviously, the crewing and structure of any organisation is rightly the responsibility of the chief constable, along with the police and crime commissioner. We have ensured that the necessary funding and protection are there this year.

Kevin Foster: Does my right hon. Friend share my feeling that some Opposition Members might have benefited from reading last year’s Public Accounts Committee’s report on the demands on the police, which shows that those demands are not related to crime?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are a few areas where Opposition Members might want to look at some of the facts and figures, and not confuse them as much as they seem to be doing.
The tremendous fall in crime I have mentioned already this afternoon was achieved while bearing down on budgets. Central Government funding for the police has fallen in real terms, and we and the police should be proud of the fact that it has saved £1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money.
I am aware of some great examples, such as the strategic alliance between Warwickshire and West Mercia Police. The alliance can now more effectively surge resources to deal with unexpected demand; 24-hour cover is available across more policing functions; more officers and PCSOs are based in safer neighbourhood   teams than in pre-alliance days; and a wider pool of expertise and experience can be tapped to respond effectively to policing challenges.

Rob Flello: The Minister paints a rosy picture, but what about the families who have lost loved ones because of drivers using mobile phones at the wheel? The Minister clearly does not read newspapers, but quite a few papers today are carrying pictures of drivers using mobile phones. Drivers are killing people, and they are not stopped because there are no traffic police out there to stop them. What does the Minister think of that? Is that somebody else’s responsibility as well?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman should check his facts and have a look at what I said earlier. What I said was I do not read The Mirror and I have not read it today. That is not quite what he was saying. He is right, however, that people who commit an offence of any description against an officer should be feeling the full force of the law. That is why I am working with colleagues across other Departments. We have sentencing guidelines, and an offence against a police officer is an aggravating factor. Even with the sentencing of youths, the fact that it is an offence against a police officer is taken into account. The difference in the sentencing systems does not mean that such issues are not taken into account.

David Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all Members of Parliament who have any concerns about police being attacked have a responsibility not to address organisations that claim that there is a problem with police brutality, as some Members of the Opposition Front Bench have done?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend has front-line experience of what police deal with every day, and I congratulate him and everybody who takes on these roles both in that capacity and any other. That goes to the heart of why the changes I announced earlier today are so important. I told the Police Federation what I would do when I first met it just a few months ago, and I am delighted that we will be able to deliver on that. It will give us the information and the certainty the police need and want.
I have been impressed by the speed at which policing has taken the lead in driving the police transformation fund, which provided £23 million for transformation work in August and £13.8 million in October. It is right that the sector takes ownership of law enforcement transformation, shaping the needs of the future. The fund provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform policing through direct investment into a wide range of projects from body-worn cameras to workforce diversity to increasing digitalisation and technology.
As I have said, the Home Office does not believe it runs policing—nor should it. It is for police and crime commissioners and chief constables, working together in the interests of policing as a whole, to lead and implement the next stage of police reform. The Government will continue to provide support to the police, doing what only we can, such as making the important change I have announced today. We will look to police leaders to play their full part in keeping the police, as well as the public whom we all serve, safe. That is why I ask the House to support the amendment.

Holly Lynch: First, I want to thank my Front-Bench colleagues for putting this issue into the spotlight by making it the subject of our Opposition day debate today. I also want to join the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) in paying tribute to the brave officer who was attacked in Lancashire only this morning. That attack is a stark reminder of just how important today’s debate really is. To those who attended my Adjournment debate on police officer safety on 11 October, I apologise for repeating myself.
My interest in this issue stems from the time I spent with West Yorkshire police in my constituency over the summer recess. On Friday 5 August, I joined the police in Calderdale for a 2 pm to 10 pm shift to get front-line experience and to see how the demands on our local police are changing. I was keen to see for myself how well police officers on the frontline in West Yorkshire were coping with cuts of £160 million over five years, resulting in the loss of 1,200 police officers—a reduction of 20% of the force. I spent the afternoon visiting community projects with neighbourhood policing, but I moved over to response policing in the evening, where I joined PC Craig Gallant in reacting to 999 calls.
I had already discussed with the Police Federation and senior officers my concern that, due to a combination of reduced numbers and the ever-expanding responsibilities of the police, officers are regularly being asked to respond to emergency calls on their own as a single crew. Only days before my shift, a female police officer had responded to a domestic call in my district and, disgracefully, been head-butted by an offender, breaking her eye socket and knocking out her teeth. It was not long into my time with PC Gallant before we attempted to stop a vehicle and speak to the driver. The driver initially sped away but after a short chase he eventually stopped. When PC Gallant got out of the car to speak to him, the situation quickly escalated and he was surrounded and forced to draw his baton. I was so concerned for his safety that I rang 999 myself, believing that that was the fastest way to make contact with the control room and stress just how urgently he needed back-up. Thankfully, other officers arrived at the scene to help to manage the situation. Amazingly, no injuries were sustained on that occasion, but I saw for myself just how quickly situations can become dangerous and just how vulnerable officers are when they are out on their own.

Greg Mulholland: The danger that our brave officers face was brought home to me when PC Suzanne Hudson was shot at point-blank range in Headingley in my constituency in 2013. Thankfully she survived and is now back at work, but the impact on her and her brave colleague, PC Richard Whiteley, has been huge. PC Whiteley saved his colleague but was then threatened himself. If they had not been working together as a pair, goodness knows what would have happened. Does the hon. Lady agree that working in pairs should be part of operational police procedure?

Holly Lynch: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think we will hear similar stories from MPs all around the Chamber in the debate today.
During the 30-minute Adjournment debate, to which the Minister referred, I had so much to say, and took so many interventions from hon. Members, all keen to share stories from their own constituencies, that I left the Minister only six minutes to respond, and even then I could not stop myself intervening on him. So I again thank my Front-Bench colleagues for facilitating this opportunity for the Minister in this debate, although I must confess that I am disappointed with the content of the Government’s amendment and with the Minister’s remarks, which simply did not go far enough in addressing this issue.
An assault on a police officer is an assault on society. It is totally unacceptable that public servants who are working in their communities to protect people and help the vulnerable should be subject to assaults as they go about their jobs. Since taking up this campaign, I have been contacted by police officers from all over the country, most of whom have themselves been on the receiving end of violent attacks. They feel that the failure to take the incidents seriously has just compounded their frustration. I shall give the House some examples. A man who assaulted four officers in the south of England earlier this year, causing serious injury to one officer in particular by gouging his eyes, was ordered to pay compensation and received a two-month suspended sentence. In Nottinghamshire, an officer was punched unconscious while trying to arrest a prolific offender who was already in breach of a suspended sentence. The offender was detained only after assaulting a second officer. He received another 15-week suspended sentence and was ordered to attend a “controlling violence in drink” course.
Increasingly, and terrifyingly, we are seeing acid being used as a means of assaulting police officers. Last year in Warwickshire, a PC was patrolling alone on her bicycle when she saw three men breaking into a property. When she stopped and identified herself as a police officer, she was attacked by the men who pushed her from her bike, kicked her and poured acid on to her face before other police officers could arrive. In my force, a police sergeant who responded—again, alone—to a dispute at a garage in Bradford had acid thrown in his face by an offender who was trying to evade arrest. The offender had nine previous convictions for 19 offences and was already on licence for a four-and-half-year jail term. He was sentenced to 20 months, yet the officer was lucky to keep his eyesight.
Police officers who are assaulted deserve the full backing of the justice system. Since my shift with West Yorkshire police, I have been made aware of at least five more assaults on officers in my constituency in the days that followed. What shocked me, and what thoroughly depresses police officers, is that sentences handed down to offenders for assaulting the police often fail to reflect the seriousness of the crime or, more crucially, serve as a deterrent. We make the laws in here, but we ask the police to uphold and enforce them out there. To assault a police officer is to show a complete disregard for law and order, for our shared values and for democracy itself, and that must be reflected in sentencing, particularly for repeat offenders. I therefore ask hon. and right hon. Members to support the motion today, which calls on the Government to implement statutory guidance on sentencing to reflect the seriousness of the crime.
In west Yorkshire—this has been reflected in comments about forces across the country—the police have had to  weather staggering cuts at a time when their case load is becoming increasingly complicated. I have seen the thin blue line stretched desperately thin as the demands on officers continue to grow. Any officer will say that one of the biggest challenges that is putting additional pressure on the police is the changing nature of dealing with vulnerable young people and adults. In the 24 hours leading up to my time on duty, Calderdale police had safely recovered nine vulnerable missing people, and they were involved in looking for an additional seven the following day. The weekly average for missing people in Calderdale is 43, with 416 a week going missing across the force, 114 of which are deemed to be high-risk individuals.
I have done a series of shifts with front-line services in my constituency and I would recommend it to all MPs. Just last Saturday I spent the evening with out-of-hours mental health services—a whole other debate for another day—and two people were detained under the Mental Health Act, with police crews unable to leave either patient. One patient who had already been assessed required an appropriate bed, and the second required an assessment suite. With neither available due to pressures on mental health services, the police officers were tied up all night, putting extra pressure on their colleagues who had to prioritise 999 calls on a Saturday night on Halloween weekend.
We have a responsibility to the most vulnerable people to keep them from harm and away from exploitation, but the police cannot be the catch-all for every problem. That is simply not sustainable with reduced numbers. To be honest, they are also not the most appropriate agency to be doing that work. The reality of not having the right answers to such questions is that the police are stretched like never before and, as a result, lone officers—single crews—are regularly asked to attend emergencies and potentially dangerous situations on their own or with fewer officers than are necessary to safely manage the situation.
I want to return to the unpleasant issue of spitting, which I covered in my Adjournment debate. I am all for informed debate about the use of spit hoods as a means of protecting officers from spitting but, to reiterate what I said in that debate, if we are politically uncomfortable with the use of spit hoods, I promise that a police officer somewhere right now will be being spat at and is even more uncomfortable. As well as being thoroughly unpleasant, spitting blood and saliva at another human being can pose a real risk of transmitting a range of infectious diseases, some of which have life-changing or even lethal consequences. We have a duty of care to protect officers from that, wherever possible. Hon. Members may be aware of the tragic case of a policewoman in Kiev in Ukraine, who died earlier this year after having contracted TB from an offender who spat at her while she was arresting him. Only this week in west Yorkshire, a man with hepatitis C was jailed for eight weeks for spitting in the eye of a police officer. If the answer is not spit hoods, it could again be tougher sentencing, but let us have that debate. Let us have it quickly and let us ensure officers on the front line are protected.
Finally—there is a lot more that I could cover, but I want to give others the opportunity to speak—having taken up the “protect the protectors” campaign, I have  been contacted by those behind the Finn’s law petition, which was referred to by the Minister and has now secured well over 100,000 signatures. Finn is a police dog who was stabbed in the head and chest last month while chasing a suspect. I was not aware until now that if a police dog or horse is assaulted, the offender can be charged only with criminal damage. I am delighted that the Petitions Committee has allocated time for a debate on reforming the law to look at ways of giving police dogs and horses more protection to allow them to continue their vital duties of supporting officers and keeping us safe.
It worries me that the ever-growing demands on the police, combined with cuts in numbers, are undermining their ability to do even some of the basics. I call on the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing to recognise that officers are routinely deployed on their own. When an officer calls for back-up, only boots on the ground will do and numbers matter. I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to support the motion and help to keep our police officers safe.

James Berry: I rise to support the Government’s amendment, and in doing so I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who is a good person leading a good campaign on police officer safety. As a barrister, I have represented numerous police officers in courts and tribunals, which has brought me into contact with many police officers and cases where they have done work in exceptionally challenging circumstances, day in, day out. Since becoming an MP, I have focused my work with the police in Kingston, and I wish to put on the record my thanks to the Metropolitan police officers there, led by borough commander Glenn Tunstall. They do an amazing job keeping us safe, day in, day out, and this year Kingston became London’s safest borough. We are not as good as we should be at publicising the everyday heroism and excellence of our police officers, which I saw when I went on a ride-along with PCs Donna Hatton and Sarah Skultety, two fine officers who are a credit to policing.
Police officers volunteer to do a fundamentally dangerous job—to walk towards danger where most of us would run away—but they are entitled to have the best protection possible, through kit, training and legislation, and through the full weight of the law being felt by those who assault them.

Rehman Chishti: Kent police and our excellent police commissioner have ensured that all police officers have body-worn cameras to ensure that their safety is taken into account and that those who commit the crimes we are talking about are brought to account. As a result, the number of complaints against the police has also been cut. Does my hon. Friend think all police forces should do that?

James Berry: I most certainly do; this is a matter for local police and crime commissioners, but there has been a reduction in the number of complaints against the police when body-worn cameras have been used, because people know that they cannot try it on when there is evidence. These cameras also provide fantastic evidence in court when a police officer is assaulted. There has been a big improvement in the personal  protective equipment available for the police, although there has been an issue with procurement, which I am glad the Home Office is looking at. When I see people from the Police Federation, one issue they raise is that officers want to be armed more routinely with Tasers, so that they can protect themselves. There is sometimes a misunderstanding about Tasers, as they are not non-lethal weapons, but less-lethal weapons. Unfortunately, people have died after being tasered, but Tasers are to be used only where the officer faces a lethal threat.
Another piece of police protective equipment that has been in the press recently is the spit guard. It is clear to me that if an officer faces being spat at in the face, they should be able, where appropriate, to use a spit guard. Liberty describes spit guards as “primitive, cruel and degrading”, but what I think is primitive and degrading is a police officer being spat at in the face. Perhaps the hon. Member for Halifax would like to send a copy of the Hansard report of her speech to the Mayor of London, who seems to have the same problem that Liberty has with spit guards.
The quality of training is another issue that police officers raise with me. Our police officers want to do a first-class job, and to do that they need first-class training so that they can do their job safely and well. I see an increased role here for the College of Policing, which currently validates training. That role would include registering officers who work in specialist areas, and providing syllabuses, validation and re-validation. I hope that that will be done under the banner of a royal college of policing, so that our professional police officers have the professional badge that many others working in professions have.

Gloria De Piero: Police officers also raise the issue of police numbers. Does the hon. Gentleman think the last Labour Government were wrong to increase police officer numbers by 14,000?

James Berry: I think this Government were right to preside over a regime that has seen crime drop to an all-time low, which is why I come on to subject of budget. All of the things that I have just mentioned and which the hon. Member for Halifax mentioned do require money—there is no getting away from that. This Government have difficult decisions to make about the policing funding formula, which they are currently considering. It is important to remember that, in the last Budget, police funding was protected. The police said that they were grateful for that, and I am pleased that Conservative London Members were able to meet the Chancellor and put their case at this time of unprecedented threat from terrorism. Yes, I accept that the police need money, but as well as money they also need for us in this House to give them the tools they need to do their job.
As a Member of Parliament, I stood on a platform of giving the police the tools they need to do their job. We did that in this House with the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. We have all heard stories from police officers in our constituencies about having to deal with somebody who has taken a novel psychoactive substance, has gone berserk, been impossible to restrain and assaulted them. We provided the police with the tools to do their job there, and we are trying to do so again with the Investigatory Powers Bill. We want to give them the tools to tackle the current technology that criminals are using.
I hope that when the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) winds up, she will reflect on how the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) came across to police officers when she made a litany of complaints about that Bill at the Dispatch Box yesterday. How will police officers have felt about that when this Government are trying, through that Bill, to give them the tools they need to do their job—the powers that they have asked this Government to provide for them? For my part, I will continue to support our brave police officers, and I know that the hon. Member for Halifax will as well. I will continue to ask the House to give the police the tools they need, and I will support the Government’s amendment tonight, to do our bit to keep our brave police officers safe, so that when those officers face danger, they know that our laws and our politicians are behind them to keep them safe.

Tracy Brabin: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech.
I was not elected in a conventional way, and it was in the darkest of circumstances, through the loss of my friend and inspiration Jo Cox, that I came to be here. What happened was not only an attack on a woman, a family and a community; it was an assault on the principles and basis of our democracy. That is why I must first pay tribute to all the political parties that did not stand in the by-election out of respect. There will be many occasions when I passionately disagree with them about a whole host of issues, but today is not that day. I also thank the voters in Batley and Spen—those who normally support my party and those who do not—who lent me their vote this time because, as one woman said with quiet determination:
“We can’t let them win.”
As the manager of a local bar told me while fringe parties leafleted outside her pub:
“That’s not who we are, or what we believe.”
The loss of all those deposits on election night confirmed it, and I will stand tall against those whose only mission is to divide our community.
The election result was a victory for democracy, and the acts of kindness that I saw along the way defined this campaign. Many in this House came to help with the campaign, and they will have seen our vibrant and dedicated voluntary and community sector, which shines even brighter than ever before. They will have seen it in the cups of tea; the cake; the pakoras and samosas; the smiles and the tears; the people in the polling station who donated that day’s pay to Jo’s charitable fund; the stories of Jo’s kindness; and the quiet determination of our community to not let hate divide us. So many groups give support, friendship, assistance and opportunities to others. As one woman from the local Salvation Army put it:
“We have two hands, one to help ourselves and one to help others.”
That is the attitude of our constituency. We understand and enjoy our obligations to each other.
One special highlight during the election campaign was the Walky Talky community event organised by leaders of all faiths, Kirklees Council and Batley Bulldogs.   People of all faith and none walked alongside each other, chatting in the sunshine from the town centre to the rugby stadium. When it was finished, people did not want to leave; they were hanging around, not ready to let this warm moment of community connection end. It was in her maiden speech that Jo said that
“what surprises me time and time again as I travel around the constituency is that we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
It was true then and it is even more the case now. We will never forget the difference that Jo has made and, through her legacy, continues to make. She was and is unforgettable. One gentleman from the community reflected, “Jo was a small woman with a big kick.” I witnessed that kick campaigning alongside Jo and the community to successfully defend Batley and Birstall’s local libraries.
This was a personal campaign for me. As a child growing up in a two-bedroomed council flat, those libraries were my solace, and anyone who is a fan of Ken Loach’s films will notice that more often than not, the turning point for the hero is always when he or she goes to a library to find the information they need. As the world gets ever more confusing and decisions taken about our lives seem further out of our hands, we need those libraries now more than ever.
I also think back to the time when I was six and our local council prevented my family from becoming homeless. Dad had been unemployed for a while and we had fallen behind in the mortgage repayments, so my mum had to hand back the keys to the building society. We would have been homeless had it not been for the council, who found us a roof over our head. But that was not an act of charity. It was a combination of political will and solidarity from local and nationally elected representatives. Today, there are now 14,000 people on the council house waiting list in Kirklees. Affordable housing is further out of reach than ever, and I will work hard to ensure that other families do not suffer the stress and anxiety that we did.
As someone with unique experience in the arts, as an actor and writer, culture will be of particular interest to me, and I know that it can be an engine of change for communities, bringing regeneration and jobs. Our young people in particular deserve nothing less. During the campaign I visited West Yorkshire Drama Academy, watching many working-class kids find their confidence and their voice. I saw myself there.
When I was a young actor and I went to castings, I would be asked where I was from. When I said, “Batley”, more often than not people would say, “Oh yeah, Batley Variety Club!” The fact that this little club could attract international stars such as Louis Armstrong, Shirley Bassey and the Bee Gees meant that there must be something about us that others want! Young people’s futures are more uncertain than ever, but whatever their ambitions, we must give them hope and belief that they can be the best. We have the power and responsibility in this place to help.
I am determined to use my time in this place to do everything I can for our community, whether campaigning to retain access to local NHS services, pursuing policies to end the need for food banks, or doing whatever I can to bring decent jobs and new investment to the  constituency. Like so many in this House, I want to create a society where everyone can contribute and reach their full potential.
Jo continues to inspire me and so many others every day, as does the dignity shown by her husband Brendan and her loving family. I am among her friends, of whom there are many in the constituency, her trade union and this House.
I make this speech during a debate on policing, so I wish to finish with a tribute to the brave officers of West Yorkshire police, who reacted so swiftly and professionally on that awful day in June. A community that could have become overrun with panic, with such a terrible act taking place in broad daylight in the sleepy village that I grew up in, was looked after admirably by our police, in no small part because of the swiftness with which they made an arrest. What happened in Batley and Spen was a violent attack on a Member of this House, but I would like to take this moment to thank the police officers themselves who put their lives on the line every single day. I would also like to congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for her hard work on raising this issue.
I take this moment to thank you, Mr Speaker, for your excellent leadership in the aftermath of Jo’s tragic death. Coming to Batley, recalling Parliament, arranging ceremonies and giving people space to grieve and mourn together was a kindness much appreciated by all in this House and beyond.
I am honoured to have the opportunity to do my bit and give a voice to my constituents through this Parliament of ours. That day will stay with everyone in Batley and Spen for the rest of our lives, but Batley and Spen will be defined not by the one person who took from us, but by the many who give. [Applause.]

Philip Davies: It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin). I think I speak for the whole House when I say that that was a truly outstanding maiden speech, and done in the best traditions of the House. Thinking back to my maiden speech, I wish could have made it as well and as competently as that.
I also ought to say that the hon. Lady showed a massive amount of dignity in the election campaign she fought—not just in the campaign itself, but particularly at the count, when she faced some deeply unpleasant barracking during her speech, which she should not have had to experience. She should probably get used to that in this place, but she certainly should not have had to put up with it then.
Having listened to the hon. Lady’s speech, it is fair to say that Jo Cox could not have hoped for a better successor, and I am sure the people of Batley and Spen feel that they could not have hoped for a better successor to Jo Cox. She clearly is going to be a rising star on the Labour Benches, and somebody the Conservative party will have to watch out for in years to come. I commend her on an excellent first speech.
This is a very important subject for me. I asked for a debate on assaults on police officers in business questions a few months ago, and on the back of that I wrote  an article on the issue for the Yorkshire Post. Therefore, I am delighted that the hon. Member for Halifax   (Holly Lynch), who has done a fantastic amount of work on the issue—I commend her wholeheartedly—has persuaded her party to have a debate on it, and I commend the Labour party for that.
I have to say right from the outset that I am rather sad that the Government have tabled an amendment to the Labour party motion; it seems to be rather splitting hairs, if I may say so. This was an opportunity for the House to speak as one on police assaults. I welcome the fact that the Government have committed not to cut police funding any further, but I do not really see why they could not have supported the motion. Therefore, if we do divide on this issue, I will happily vote for the Labour party motion, because I cannot see anything in it with which I disagree.
I should also say at the start that I actually voted against any cuts to the police budget every year when cuts were proposed, because I believe that the first duty of the Government is to protect the public, and the police budget was not the budget the Government should have been cutting. I therefore endorse everything that the Labour party has said on this issue.
Like the hon. Member for Halifax, I have spent an awful lot of days going out with West Yorkshire police—about 60 or 70 since I first got elected. I have the greatest respect for the officers and the sacrifices they make on a daily basis keeping us safe. One of the most serious consequences of being a police officer is the threat of personal injury, or actual injury, and occasionally worse, in the line of duty.
As has been mentioned, the recording of assaults is not necessarily uniform, and is clearly a bit haphazard. The charging procedure also makes it difficult to follow through on the number of assaults that there actually are. An assault on a police officer will be charged as an assault on a police officer only if it meets certain criteria; otherwise, it could be charged as another violence against the person offence, albeit that the facts show that the victim was a police officer.
I put in a freedom of information request about two months ago to the Metropolitan police, which showed that there have been broadly 2,000 assaults on police officers in the Metropolitan police area every year for the last three years. When we take those in which injury occurred, there seems to have been an increase from 536 in 2013 to a worrying 869 in 2015, and that is just in London. The figures also show that the most serious incidents—wounding or grievous bodily harm—have increased from 81 in 2013 to 211 in 2015. I have been trying to establish the relevant number in West Yorkshire but have not had as much joy. I have also been wondering whether there should be a specific offence of assaulting a police officer that would cover all assaults and not just some. The name of the offence could encapsulate all offences against police officers. This would certainly make identifying the numbers involved easier, so at least we would know the true picture.
Crucial in this is sentencing. My biggest concern is that while we want to get the numbers right, it is also very important to make sure that the sentencing of such offenders matches the seriousness of the offence. I called for a debate on this not long ago. Again, having one offence could help, but whatever happens, we need tougher sentences. The sentencing guidelines relating to assaulting a police officer were amended a few years ago. We should all be concerned about those guidelines.  At the time, I was told that someone who committed an assault on a police officer that involved a punch to the stomach that winded the officer, where there was an attempt to evade arrest, and where the individual had previous convictions, could in theory be punished only with a fine. I was concerned about that then and I am concerned about it now.

David Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Philip Davies: Yes, briefly.

David Davies: My hon. Friend and I have spent probably 10 years calling for tougher sentences and often being rubbished and criticised by Members in various parts of this House. Is he surprised that so many people are now calling for tougher sentences and saying that prison works and offers a deterrent?

Philip Davies: I am delighted that people are calling for more people to be sent to prison. I have been arguing that case for an awfully long time, and I am delighted that I seem to be getting some traction on it.
The problem with the sentencing guidelines is just the tip of the iceberg. I have asked parliamentary questions about this for a while, and have been shocked to find out that only one in seven criminals convicted of an assault on a police constable in the execution of their duty received a prison sentence at all. In the latest year shown in the figures, 7,829 assaults on police officers were recorded as being dealt with in our courts where the offender pleaded guilty or was found guilty, and yet only 1,002 of the offenders were actually sent to prison. That is completely and utterly unacceptable.
Other parliamentary questions I have asked revealed that someone with an astonishing 36 previous convictions for assaulting a police officer managed to avoid being sent to prison for a further assault on a police officer.

Rehman Chishti: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Huw Merriman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Philip Davies: I am going to press on, if my hon. Friends do not mind, because other people want to speak and I want to crack on.
This kind of soft, lily-livered approach to sentencing is simply not on. I want to mention a recent example of a case before Bradford Crown court that was not charged as an assault against a PC because of the nature of the incident. It demonstrates the problem that we have. The hon. Member for Halifax mentioned this issue, but I want to emphasise it. Sergeant Andrew Heald, who was arresting a criminal who had an armful of previous convictions and was out of prison on licence, had acid thrown in his face and feared that he had been blinded or disfigured. I cannot imagine how frightening that must have been for that police officer doing his job of protecting the public. The sentence handed down to the lowlife who threw the acid in Sergeant Heald’s face was 20 months for the attack and a further 10 months for the offence for which he was trying to arrest him.
I want to be clear that this derisory sentence was not the fault of the judge, as having looked carefully at the sentencing guidelines, it is obvious that he had acted to the best of his ability given the constraints that the guidelines placed on him. This meant that because he  was out on licence, this thug, who should not even have been out of prison in the first place, will serve just 10 months in prison for this vicious attack on a police officer doing his job. There should be a clearly defined additional sentence for anyone who attacks our police officers, and generally the sentences need to be much more severe. The police put their lives at risk to protect us, and the least we can do in this place is to make sure that the law better protects them.
I have also been looking at the use of tasers by the police. It seems to me that tasers are currently underused and that if more police had them they might be better able to prevent assaults on themselves in the first place. According to my recent FOI request, just 13% of police officers in West Yorkshire are authorised to carry a taser. If the police want to carry a taser to better protect themselves, we should make sure that that is facilitated.
The motion touches on police numbers. As I have made clear, I have voted against cuts to the police budget every year they have been proposed. This should be a priority for the police. If the Government had to save money—which they did—they would have been far better off cutting the overseas aid budget, which lines the pockets of corrupt politicians around the world, rather than cutting the police budget when the first duty of the Government is to protect the public. The fact is that police officer numbers in West Yorkshire have reduced from 5,817 in May 2010 to 4,552 today. That is just not good enough or at all helpful. We need more police officers.
In conclusion, every attack on an officer should always act as a reminder of the bravery of our police and the price that they sometimes pay to protect us. It is only right that the Government and Parliament totally support them in return. Clearly, establishing how many police officers are assaulted is helpful, but toughening up the sentences of those who attack the police as they do their duty is the best thing that this House could do, and this debate is a very good start. For those reasons, I support the Labour motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I thank very warmly the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) for a quite outstanding maiden speech, and I would like in turn very warmly to thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for a typically gracious and poignant response to it.
I am afraid that it will be necessary now to impose a very tight time limit to try to accommodate colleagues, for which I apologise. Some senior Members are affected, but I think they are gracious in acknowledging the need. Four minutes.

Andy Burnham: The outstanding speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) was a truly memorable parliamentary occasion, as was the fine speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch). I do not often say this, but the other side of the Pennines has a lot to be proud of, including even the hon. Member for Shipley  (Philip Davies). To elicit from him an emotional reaction and support for the Labour party is a truly big achievement, and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen has managed that today.
This is an important and well-timed debate, because it provides me with an opportunity to put into proper context the recent work that I have been doing on policing. I am sure that some people might see challenging past injustice as in some way anti-police, but nothing could be further from the truth, and I am glad to have the chance to say that. I am pro-police, and I want to do whatever I can to strengthen the position of those out there on the frontline.
There are three ways in which we can do that. The first relates to police numbers and funding, and the second to protecting police officers through the powers we give them and through sentencing. The third is that we can build public trust in our police force by challenging past misdeeds. Unresolved past injustice can infect the present and unfairly leave a cloud hanging over officers on the frontline. It is right to remove it.
I want to touch on each of those three issues briefly. First, on funding, I am afraid that the Minister is wrong to say that the police budget has been protected. It has not been protected; it has been cut in real terms. Greater Manchester police’s revenue support grant was cut by £8.5 million this year, and the precept powers that it was given raised only £3.5 million. Let us get these facts straight, because otherwise the public will get confused. About 1,800 officers have already been lost from the frontline. We cannot take these cuts anymore. A story in The Mail on Sunday over the weekend said that the thin blue line of Greater Manchester is the thinnest of them all—it is the thinnest in the country. The cuts cannot continue. We need a commitment from the Government to honour their promise of no real-terms cuts to police budgets, because that has not happened.
Secondly, on protection for police officers, body-worn cameras need to be introduced now, because they can protect police officers today. We need a debate about the greater use of Tasers, and we really need to look at sentencing. I have mentioned the Dale Cregan situation previously, but there are other examples. An off-duty police officer, Neil Doyle, was killed in Liverpool. His attacker also committed a violent offence against two other individuals, but he only got three years and will soon be moved to an open prison.

Rehman Chishti: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one area that really affects police officers and the public is drink-driving and driving while disqualified? Repeat offenders can only be given sixth months’ custody—it does not matter whether it is a second, third or fifth offence—so we have to review the sentencing on that. My previous private Member’s Bill was designed to increase the maximum sentence to two years. Does he think that that is a good idea and that we should do it?

Andy Burnham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have always been too lenient on motoring offences, particularly death by dangerous driving.
I was talking about police officers, and they need greater protection in law and in the sentencing guidelines. The Police Federation said today that the sentences that are handed out are often inadequate and inconsistent, and they simply do not provide the strong message that  is required. We must resolve across the House to strengthen those sentencing guidelines, and I want to make my support for that absolutely clear.
I will finish on the point of public trust in the police. I believe we are all sent here to challenge injustice wherever we find it. Where we have evidence of it, we have a moral duty to act. Failure to do so corrodes the bond of trust between public and police, and it damages policing by consent. The decision on Orgreave this week was, in my view, wrong, and it makes it harder for the South Yorkshire police to move forward. That decision does not help officers in South Yorkshire who are out there on the frontline, because it leaves a cloud hanging over them.
Let me give the House a quick quote:
“Historical inquiries are not archaeological excavations… We must never underestimate how the poison of decades-old misdeeds seeps down through the years and is just as toxic today as it was then. That’s why difficult truths, however unpalatable they may be, must be confronted head on”.
I could not agree more with those words—the words of our Prime Minister to the Police Federation this year. She is right, so what has changed? Why are we now pushing away those things and leaving them unresolved?
The Government have made their decision, but this House should make a different decision. I have today advanced the idea, based on the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), that a Select Committee should look at Orgreave. In my view, that is the right thing to do. I appeal to Members from all parts of the House to back that suggestion, so that we can build trust in our police and give them proper funding and protection.

David Davies: I am delighted to be able to speak in this important debate, and I am glad that the Opposition have secured it. I spent nine years as a special constable, during which time I was assaulted—once in a police station, of all places, although not by another police officer. I echo many of the comments that have been made by Members from all parts of the House.
I am particularly keen on sentencing. It is fantastic that Members from all parts of the House are saying firmly that they want stronger sentences for people who commit assaults on police officers. I have stood here many times over a decade or more, as a Government Member and an Opposition Member, and argued that prison works, prison is effective, prison keeps people safe and prison acts as a deterrent. Many times, I have been intervened on by Opposition Members—and, sometimes, by Government Members—who have told me otherwise. There seems to be a strong consensus here, however, and I thoroughly support that.
I thoroughly support the use of Tasers. At the moment, all police officers are equipped with pepper spray or CS gas, as was the case when I started, and a long, retractable stick of metal called an ASP, which is basically a long baton. The problem is that the baton has to be used quite close up, and there is a risk of causing a severe injury by striking somebody in any way with a baton. Police officers are trained to use a baton against the legs and arms, but that is difficult to do in the sorts of situations where those batons are pulled out. The advantage of Tasers is that people can stand 10 or  15 feet away and point it. The vast majority of times when a Taser is used, all the police officer has to do is to draw it and draw to the potential offender’s notice the fact that there is a red dot on their chest. The potential offender will very often desist from whatever they are doing and comply with the instructions they are given, without receiving any injury at all.
When I was a special, there was at one point a debate about the possibility of police officers being armed. I felt that I would never be able to do the job if I was armed with a firearm. I simply could not do that. I have the utmost respect for the highly trained officers who do, but the decision to use it is not something that I would ever want on my conscience. Using a Taser is something else. It is a far less offensive weapon than the retractable iron bar with which all police officers are equipped.

Andy Burnham: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but he will be aware of a case earlier this year in Telford where the footballer Dalian Atkinson was killed in an incident. We do not know all the circumstances, and generally I support the use of Tasers, but does the hon. Gentleman not think that that case should give us pause for thought before we go for a major roll-out?

David Davies: It should. We could go into the details of why people sometimes die as a result of Taser use, and it is very rare for that to happen, but that should certainly give us pause for thought. If the alternative is a police officer waving around an iron bar, which could easily strike somebody on the head and similarly injure them very badly or kill them, we have to look at what is the lesser of two evils. For me, the use of Tasers is the lesser of two evils.
I want to go quickly through a couple of other points. I, too, support the use of body cameras. They will enable people to see the problems that police officers face and help to bring more people to justice. I worry, however, that some people may see them as another way of being able to criticise the police. It is very important that people understand two things. First, police officers are under stress when they are threatened by a large group telling them, “We’re going to kill you. We’re going to attack you now.” That has happened to me and, frankly, it creates a certain amount of fear. I could not have admitted that at the time, but it does. Police officers cannot get away from the threat in front of them, and one of the ways they deal with it is to become quite aggressive in their language, and certainly in their gestures and sometimes in their behaviour. People must understand that when they look at camera footage. Secondly, it is a fact that when police officers have finished dealing with such a situation, they sometimes go back into the station and make comments or use language that some people, taking that out of context, may feel is inappropriate. We will have to be grown up and understand that when we look at camera footage.
I worry that the use of cameras by protesters at demonstrations is quite often a means to criticise the police very unfairly. For example, I have seen pictures in national newspapers of police officers looking very fierce and holding up an ASP as though ready to strike somebody. They are doing that because that is what they are trained to do. By the time a police officer has to draw a retractable baton, they are expected to behave in  an aggressive fashion. There is no point waving it gently around saying, “Excuse me, sir, would you mind going home now?” By the time that thing is out, people must realise that the police officer means business, and they very often do so. I am worried about the way in which such cameras are used.
I will not be able to sum it up in one minute and 20 seconds, but there is a wider issue, which is the need to consider the whole way in which the police force is structured. It seems to me that we take everyone and train them to be out on the streets, but we can give them only two days training a year in how to use handcuffs, restraints, batons and all the rest of it, which is not enough for those who are going to end up in conflict situations.
I can absolutely say from bitter and true experience—most officers would reflect this—that all the stuff taught during those two days in the gym soon goes out of the window. It all looks very good in training, but once it happens for real, there is just a mass of arms and legs and batons and heavens knows what flying around all over the place, and it does not look good. Yet many police officers frankly do not need to be put in such situations. Those who deal with cybercrime need to be IT experts; they do not need to be able to run after people and catch them. Those who deal with financial crimes, need to be accountants. Even those dealing with and investigating serious crimes need to have a lawyer’s mind, rather than be able to run 100 metres in 10 seconds. I sometimes think that we could look at the different jobs being done in the police force and consider whether we need police officers to have all the skills that we currently require them to have. I will not have enough time to go into further details, but I want to say one more thing. It behoves us all as Members of Parliament to support the police, not to pander to groups or organisations that are there to criticise them.

Vernon Coaker: May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) on her fantastic maiden speech? I want to tell her that I thought she did Jo Cox’s memory a fantastic service. The integrity and honesty with which she spoke brought tears to the eyes of many people in the Chamber. The words she said about you, Mr Speaker, and everyone else shows her integrity as an individual and how outstanding an MP she will be for Batley and Spen. I am sure that Jo Cox, if she is looking down on us, and certainly Brendan and all the family will have seen her speech and will treasure it. Her fantastic speech moved all of us.
May I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on obtaining this important debate? I say that as the son of a man who was a Metropolitan police officer for 30 years.
The Minister has some very real questions to answer at the end of this debate. Let us remind ourselves that we are talking about 23,000 assaults on police a year, which is more than 63 a day. Of those assaults, 8,000 involve an injury, which is some 21 a day. In my police force in Nottinghamshire, there were 45 self-reported assaults and 267 assaults without injury. To me, each of those is an assault not just on an individual police  officer, as bad as that is, but on the symbol of the rights of us as individuals to live in a democracy under the law.
When the Minister responds, will she say whether she is satisfied that the law on police officer assaults is satisfactory? In particular, the hon. Member for Kensington (Victoria Borwick) mentioned the Notting Hill carnival. Many of those assaults were by young people who are not covered by the sentencing guidelines on assaults on police officers, which refer to people who are 18 or over.
The House deserves a better answer to the questions from the shadow Home Secretary and others about the Government’s policy on body-worn video cameras and how they will be rolled out. It is not good enough for the Government to turn around and say it is an operational matter. Surely the Government have a view on whether it should be accelerated or encouraged.

Andy Burnham: There were 864 assaults on police officers in Greater Manchester last year—a force that is seeing cuts to the frontline. To listen to the Minister this afternoon, one would think everything is rosy, but morale is very low. What does my hon. Friend think the Government need to do to lift morale, because I believe it is dangerously low?

Vernon Coaker: My right hon. Friend makes a really good point. The first thing to do is to listen to what police officers are saying. The Government seem to be living in a parallel universe. They say the funding is fine, there is no problem with police morale and there is no problem with police numbers, yet, like my right hon. Friend, we all see very real problems in our constituencies around morale and policing.
As my right hon. Friend says, we see the backdrop of huge cuts to police numbers, with nearly 20,000 cut since 2010. In my force in Nottinghamshire, the number of officers is down by 122 and the number of PCSOs by 62 since 2012. The only response of Ministers to that seems to be that it has no impact whatsoever on policing on our streets.
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to an excellent article in The Mail on Sunday this week, which revealed the really low numbers of police on duty at night, when many of the most serious crimes are committed. It had a table obtained by a freedom of information request with the number of response officers on duty on the nightshift of 9 April 2016. Members of Parliament will be able to look up the figures for their own forces, but Nottinghamshire had just 75 or one per 11,000 people. That simply is not enough.
It is not good enough for the Minister to say that it is an operational matter. Do the Government not have a view on the number of front-line officers there should be protecting the public, rather than turning around and saying, “It’s nothing to do with us. It’s an operational matter”? Surely the Government should take a view on that matter and discuss it with chief constables.
It is important to draw attention to the article in The Mail on Sunday that refers to the number of response officers. It is clear that police safety is put at risk by the increase in police officers having to go out on their own. There are not sufficient officers and it is about time the Government took a view on that, rather than washing their hands of it. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that.

Rebecca Harris: I welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on her campaign to protect the protectors.
For the past year I have taken part in the police service parliamentary scheme, which I would wholeheartedly recommend to all Members of Parliament. It has given me a unique window on the world of everyday life in the police force and the tasks that the police have to undertake on our behalf. I have shadowed various departments in Essex police and seen the incredible work that members of our police service do daily, the challenges and dangers they face, and the frankly astonishing levels of commitment to public service they show. I put on the record my thanks to Essex police for helping me take up that opportunity.
Many of the brave men and women in our police recognise that we are in a challenging period for policing. At a time when the Government are asking them to do more for less, they have absolutely risen to the challenge. Front-line officers put their own safety at risk every day in order to keep people like ourselves safe. I have heard first-hand accounts of officers being punched, kicked, spat at and even bitten, not to mention receiving verbal threats.
Spitting has already been discussed. Although it is often not seen as causing physical harm, not only is it truly disgusting but, as has been mentioned, there are real health risks involved. I would like to have a wider debate on spit hoods. If anyone feels squeamish about them I encourage them to put themselves in the position of an officer being spat at.

Mark Francois: I recently went out on a ride-along with officers from Essex police. I witnessed a suspect who was being restrained attempting to spit at a police officer. It was a really ugly thing to see. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must look more seriously at the option of spit hoods, because if we really want to protect our police officers we need to do something concrete?

Rebecca Harris: Absolutely unquestionably—spitting is a revolting thing to do. Often the last resort for someone being arrested is to try to spit, out of spite.
We have already heard about the around 23,000 assaults on police officers across the country. I was shocked to learn that there were just under 700 assaults in Essex alone. However, many more go unreported, sometimes because officers feel the offence is so commonplace it will not be pursued and, more worryingly, that the sentence will perhaps not reflect the assault’s effect on the officer.
The innovation of body-cams has been very effective in its roll-out in Essex. The cameras have reduced assaults on officers and increased the possibility of prosecutions. But they do not in themselves deal with the inconsistency on reporting, sentencing or prosecution. I spoke to the chair of the Essex branch of the Police Federation about officer experience post assault. What I heard was largely very positive with regard to how the force itself supports its officers. However, the chair stressed again and again that there were incidents where  the psychological effect on the victim of an attack was not taken into account in sentencing, whereas it would be for many other crimes.
It is right that the courts, through the independence of the judiciary, have discretion to take into account the circumstances of each case in determining the appropriate sentence, but in cases of assaults on officers, courts really need to consider the implications for the officer’s mental health. When a sentence is very low or non-existent, there is further psychological damage to the officer involved; they feel undervalued, unappreciated and not paid the respect they deserve for putting their lives on the line for us on a daily basis. That is not good enough. We must protect the very people who do so much to keep us safe. It must be clear that any attack on a police officer will be punished to the fullest extent of the law. The independent Sentencing Council produced the guidelines; it is important it recognises how seriously the public feel about attacks on serving police officers.
We should not fall into seeing attacks on police officers as a hazard of the job or as in some way so everyday an occurrence that they are less significant than assaults on members of the public. I urge everyone to take the contrary view: that such attacks ought to be judged more severely, as police officers deserve our protection and support in return. That point must be repeatedly stressed to the Crown Prosecution Service. Anecdotally, we know that there are concerns about the wide variation around the country in the approach taken by the CPS towards assaults on officers. The message needs to go out to the CPS loud and clear that assaults on police must be charged at the most appropriate gradation, and that that must be consistently applied across the country. Likewise, I would like the message to go to the judiciary that they must understand that we want the police to have the full support of the law behind them.
I warmly welcome the Minister’s announcement that police forces will be required to record offences against officers properly as part of their crime statistics. Our police service is absolutely second to none in the world, which is why they need support from us that is second to none.

Jessica Morden: I thank those on the Labour Front Bench for choosing this topic for debate today and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for championing this issue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) on her brilliant maiden speech, which was very moving. We look forward to many more.
I put on record my thanks to hard-working police officers and support staff, both on the frontline and in the back office. From dealing with Gwent police as the local MP and from my time on the police force parliamentary scheme, I know just how hard police officers and support staff work. I know their complete dedication to serving the public and how tough their job is.
In the firm opinion of the people who contacted me prior to this debate with powerful stories to tell that deserve to be aired, the cuts have depleted numbers on the frontline and certainly impacted on front-line capabilities, as well as increasing the risks to officer   safety. In Gwent, we have 1,127 police officers, whereas in March 2010 there were 1,437 full-time equivalent officers—a 20% cut. I am pleased that this year Gwent is recruiting new officers for the first time in three years, but we have had a loss of hundreds of experienced officers. Cuts of that severity are bound to have an effect. It will take time to bring the new people through.
As has been reiterated in this debate, we lack reliable data on incidents involving officers. We need that data, so we are better able to tackle the problem. Police officers have told me that they agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax when she says that the thin blue line is stretched far too thinly. Single-crewing is common practice and there is a heightened risk of harm because of that. Officers also tell me that numbers on a shift may look fine, but they do not relate to the numbers available to deal with crime. Shift numbers often include those on leave, on sick or on secondment. If we take off those waiting in custody or with injured people, the numbers are significantly lower.
Injuries sustained in the line of duty are far too frequent. They are becoming an acceptable part of the job and that should never be the case. It is not just a hazard of the job: it is clearly unacceptable. Officers report a noticeable reduction in respect for police officers and assaulting a police officer is not taken sufficiently seriously. I support the call in the motion for statutory guidance on sentencing uniformly across the country, which reflects the seriousness of the issue.
Police officers cannot protect us if they cannot protect themselves. I will just finish with this: a woman who is married to a police officer contacted me to describe just how the injuries her husband sustains in the course of his work affect the family. It has got to the point where, to stop their children worrying, the couple lie about how he sustains his injuries. She says:
“According to my children he is the clumsiest dad ever, as we have had to tell them ‘dad fell over a bin chasing someone,’ ‘dad walked into a cupboard door in the station,’ ‘dad caught himself on the police car door.’ I am tired of seeing my husband come home injured and having to lie to my children to about how he sustained his injuries. I worry every time he is late home and grateful every time he returns home safely.”
It is time that we did more—to say that that is unacceptable for such families and to support our officers who are out there on our behalf.

Paul Scully: In 2003, PC Patrick Dunne was a Sutton resident serving in Wandsworth when he arrived in Cato Road in Clapham on his bike to deal with a minor domestic abuse call-out. Hearing gunfire, he rushed out into the street and was hit by a single pistol shot in the chest, which killed him instantly. His murderer, Gary Nelson, laughed with his colleagues and fired a celebratory shot in the air, before driving off leaving two dead bodies behind, including the victim of the original gunshot. Nelson was caught, prosecuted and sentenced to 35 years. Sutton’s serious crime office, which is attached to our main police station, is named Patrick Dunne House, reminding us every day not only of his bravery, service and life, but the threat our police officers face each day.
In 2009, PC Paul Dalton, a member of the Wrythe safer neighbourhoods team in Sutton next to where I live, was on shift walking close to a local funfair on a Sunday. He was stabbed in the neck with a wine bottle in an unprovoked attack. He bravely managed to chase his assailant and make an arrest. Fortunately, his stab-proof vest prevented a more severe injury, and the person was arrested and jailed for five years. In London terms, Sutton is a low-crime borough, and residents do not expect that sort of violence, but police officers know that, however unlikely, something could happen at any time. As well as policing more dangerous areas than Sutton, Met police officers have to police public events and demonstrations, and face constant terrorist threats.
I have seen demonstrations turn ugly here in Westminster and the pressure that police officers come under when that happens. Six years ago, I watched from Bellamy’s café as protesters outside, right in front of us, picked up rubble from roadworks with the clear purpose of throwing it at police officers. I can only stand in awe at how police officers keep their nerve, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), along with their patience and their discipline, and I have seen how pumped up they are at the end of their shifts. Parliament Square that day looked like a war zone, with fires all around.
Today, assaults on officers are still too frequent—frankly, just one is too many. Operational changes, as we have heard, as well as changes in sentencing and sentencing advice can help. Police officers face risks from spitting, including hepatitis, and may have to take courses of powerful anti-viral drugs, for up to three months, that can cause severe nausea.
I was very disappointed when the Mayor of London abruptly pressed the pause button at the last minute on the trialling of spit guards. As London’s equivalent of a police and crime commissioner, the Mayor is no longer a lawyer who represents people claiming against the police; he represents the police officers and their welfare, and he represents Londoners, so it is for him to maintain their safety. I hope he will look again at this issue.
As we have also heard, body cameras are a useful innovation for reducing complaints about police officers. I read an interesting report by the University of Cambridge, which suggested that incidence of assaults had increased for those wearing body cameras by 15%. The university acknowledged, however, that far more research needs to be done to explain what lies behind that.
A number of Members lobbied the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to protect the police budget and protect police numbers last time. We want to make sure that our brave police officers are out and about, acting as a visible deterrent, but also keeping us safe.

Gerald Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to today’s very important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on spearheading this cause and on the powerful case that she made. A very moving maiden speech was also given by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin).
In common with other hon. Members, I have the utmost respect for our police officers and for the job they do in keeping our communities and our country  safe. Over the past few months, I have had the privilege of taking part in the police service parliamentary scheme. I have always felt, albeit from a distance, that police officers go over and above the call of duty when carrying out their role. During my time on the parliamentary scheme, as I shadowed police officers in the course of their duties, I was impressed at first hand by just how committed and passionate they are.
It is alarming that, last year, an estimated 23,394 police officers were assaulted while undertaking their duty. This equates to 64 assaults every day. Police numbers have been much reduced since 2010, with the loss of about 19,000 officers. Clearly, this reduction puts added pressure on police officers and has a detrimental impact on morale and officer safety.
Most people do their jobs in safe surroundings, while police officers face dangerous situations and risk their own safety every day. As people who work hard on behalf of society to keep us all safe, police officers deserve to have the full backing of the law in the event that they are assaulted. That assurance will give officers the confidence that they will be fully supported and protected by the criminal justice system.
In my experience, the vast majority of the public do respect the police and the job they do. Luckily, most people do not have direct contact with police officers, but are reassured that the police are there doing their job to keep them and their communities safe. Unfortunately, a few openly attack or assault officers. We must all send a strong message that that is unacceptable, and those who seek to harm officers will indeed face severe consequences and robust sentencing on conviction.
We know that police officers put themselves in harm’s way in the course of their duty, and they do it selflessly. However, the view that being assaulted is “just part of the job” cannot be right. An assault on a police officer doing their lawful duty is, as we heard earlier, an assault against society. Currently, such assaults are covered by section 89 of the Police Act 1996. However, although sentencing allows for a custodial sentence of up to six months, the reality of a conviction for assault on a police officer is rare. It is more common for a caution, a fine or a suspended sentence to be imposed. Latest official figures show that 7,829 criminals were convicted of assaulting police officers last year, but only 1,002 of them were sent to prison.
Most of my constituency is covered by South Wales police, but a third is covered by Gwent police. Both forces have recorded instances of assault, including biting and spitting at officers. As we know, the seriousness of assaults varies, but in many cases officers are off work for some time. Obviously much distress is caused to the individuals involved, but during the periods when they are off work an even greater strain is imposed on police workloads.
I support the motion, and I urge other Members to do so as well.

Byron Davies: I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, and to have another opportunity to discuss this issue. I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who is a strong advocate for police officer safety and who, as we have heard, initiated an Adjournment debate on the subject in which I was happy to participate.
When people become police officers, they understand that they will face risks, and I well remember the risks that I faced during my 32-year career in the Metropolitan police. I received a few pokes myself, but I am glad to say that I survived them. In my view, however, an assault on a police officer constitutes an assault on our values, on our civilised way of life and on our society, and should attract the strongest punishment that the criminal justice system can offer. It is vital for the system to use the strong sentencing guidelines and the full extent of the law to punish those who assault officers. I am sorry, but a caution, a fine or a suspended sentence is not adequate or appropriate. We must send the clear message that any assault on a police officer—on our society—will be met with the full force of the law. Moreover, it is imperative that we take our duty of care with the utmost seriousness, and that means giving officers the proper equipment and protection to enable them to deal with the myriad threats that they now face.
Many of us have areas in our constituencies that are major night-time hotspots, and there are problems in managing such areas. There can be hundreds of pubs and clubs in small areas in a city, with long licensing hours and poor management of drunken and aggressive behaviour. That puts the police in direct confrontation with people who have been allowed to drink to excess, have been thrown out of clubs or have been involved in violent incidents. It must be said that that culture only grew under the Labour Government, with the 24-hour licensing laws and the so-called pavement culture that was fostered under Tony Blair. We need to look again at those laws, at the management of certain premises, and at the way in which pubs and clubs deal with people who are violent if we are to change the environment that causes a large number of assaults on police. It is vital that we do that if we are to have a serious debate about tackling such behaviour.
Long custodial sentences are imperative, not just for the purpose of punishment but, in particular, to protect society from this loutish conduct. However, for the sake of officers throughout the country, we must also try to tackle the behaviour—or the lack thereof—that is at the root of some of the problems. There are, of course, other problems, but I wanted to introduce that issue to the debate in the hope that it will be discussed further.
There is much to agree with in the motion, but we need to be clear about the issue of police numbers. It is, of course, incredibly important for us to have sufficient officers to tackle and prevent crime and antisocial behaviour. However, as one who has managed resources and police officers and who remains in constant contact with former and current officers, I know that it is far too simplistic to concentrate solely on the issue of numbers. This is about giving the police the proper technical resources and equipment, and about the correct management and deployment of those resources. Senior management must use the techniques and resources that are available to 21st-century police forces to manage their forces properly and deploy them in the right way if we are to continue to cut crime and tackle the root causes of criminal and antisocial behaviour.
In the case of police assaults, there is no substitute for strong custodial sentences. If we are to tackle assaults on those who protect and maintain our society—  which, in turn, constitute attacks on that very society —we must ensure that the police are secure in the possession of the very best equipment, and are themselves protected by determined prosecutors who deal with these cases in a way that ensures that serious and severe custodial sentences ensue.

Chris Elmore: The average police officer will be assaulted every five or six years that they serve. It is easy to forget that those officers, despite their exceptional work, are regular people; they go to work to earn a living, to put food on the table and a roof over their family’s head. They should not have to put up with the threat of not coming home in one piece. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to all who put themselves in danger to protect us, and, as this debate has shown, we are extremely grateful for the work they do. However, it is our responsibility not only to recognise the problem before us, but to deal with it, too.
The Police Federation has claimed that lenient sentences given to those who assault officers are one of the main reasons that so many officers are harmed. Every force in the UK has incidents each week of police officers receiving punches to the face, bites to the arms, and cuts to the head, but the perpetrators are often let off without custodial sentences. On the occasions when a sentence is given, they can be woefully short. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) have already raised this, but it is worth repeating: in one instance, a man found guilty of throwing acid in an officer’s face to avoid arrest was given a sentence of only 20 months. I do not think any Member of this House can contemplate how that must make the officer and their family feel.
Officers in our community have been clear time and again that they believe their safety is endangered by the weak sentences given to those who assault officers. We must take those claims seriously and consider tougher sentences for those who attack the police.
We should also consider the increased danger that officers can be in during single staffed patrols. I know that many officers are concerned that they are at increased risk while on their own and it is not right that they are so often forced into such situations. As police numbers have been cut under this Government, single staffed patrols have increased. By the end of the last Parliament, budget cuts meant that my police force, South Wales Police, had 500 fewer officers. The result of this is increased single staffed patrols that put officers in danger, as well as those whom they work to protect. Single staffed patrols too often leave officers in serious peril. If we do not listen to the warnings about budget cuts and the consequential increase in officers working on their own, we will see the effects on police officer safety.
Over the course of this debate alone, some nine police officers will have been assaulted. There will always be instances of police officers being in danger, but those instances need not so often lead to our officers being physically harmed. The police are clear that there are solutions to improving police officer safety—and whether through less lenient sentences or increased funding—we should listen and take note of what they are saying; after all, they are the experts.

Kevin Foster: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and also the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), which reminded me of 18 months ago when I was on this Bench listening to her predecessor, someone who was so full of energy, so full of passion and so full of life—a life that was, sadly, taken away. It is apt that we were reminded earlier today that more unites us than divides us when we are in the Chamber. It is the heart of our democracy, and we are surrounded by reminders of past Members who have given their lives for those principles.
This debate on police officer safety is welcome, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who has done so much work on it. Our police officers have a long history of dealing with difficult and violent individuals, and it is right that they should feel they have the protection of the law when they do so. I am thinking particularly of those who show bravery every day on the streets of south Devon and Torbay and those who have in many cases put their own lives at risk to try and save others, either when dealing with a criminal situation or when coming across someone in distress or need.
The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) talked about Devon and Cornwall being a sleepy area, and he may not have meant it in the way it came across, but although Devon and Cornwall have beautiful areas and villages, Torbay has its share of issues and difficulties, like many other coastal communities, and the level of assaults we have seen on officers is concerning, with 267 in an 11-month period and a—thus far unaudited—further 26 assaults last month. To see people who are serving the public being dealt with in that way gives all of us cause for concern.
I welcome the way in which this debate has been conducted. Most police forces around the world carry firearms for protection, and it is a huge compliment to our own police that they stand firm behind the principle that we police by consent and not at the point of a gun. We see far too many incidents in the United States that would never warrant the use of lethal force or firearms being drawn in this country. It is a real compliment to our officers that the vast majority of them go out there every day without being armed with a lethal weapon. That said, it is right that police forces in places such as Devon and Cornwall are considering the expanded use of Tasers and spit hoods to deal with those who use violence, those who will not co-operate when arrested and, crucially, those who put others at risk.
It is worth dwelling for a moment on what we ask our officers to do. Some contributions to the debate seemed to suggest that they deal only with crime. The nature of crime is changing, and last year’s Public Accounts Committee’s report drilled down into that subject. We considered the situations that we are now asking response police officers to go into. I ask the Minister to tell us when we can look forward to a revised funding formula, particularly in the light of the benefits that that will have for Devon and Cornwall. I also want to highlight the Bills dealing with animal cruelty that will be debated here on Friday 24 February. They might help to deal with some of the issues relating to assaults on police dogs and horses. It is bizarre that at the moment someone can be charged with such an offence and receive a  similar sentence to one that they would receive for damaging property. The Library notes show a worrying decline in the average custodial sentences given to some offenders, and I hope that the new sentencing guidelines will help to deal with that. I welcome this debate, and I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the officers who show such bravery each and every day.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I congratulate the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) on her excellent maiden speech. I should also like to thank the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for securing this debate and for doing so much work on this matter. I am sure the House will appreciate that assaults on police officers cannot be brushed off as an occupational hazard. Figures obtained from South Wales police show that a total of 631 days were lost due to work-related assaults in one year. North Wales police say that assaults on officers are a daily occurrence.
The first problem that we should address is the lack of accurate recording of assaults against police officers. The Plaid Cymru police and crime commissioner for the North Wales police force, Arfon Jones, has secured sufficient budget allocation to ensure that he can realise his manifesto pledge to supply every police officer with body-worn video equipment while on duty. Body-worn cameras collect evidence that has proved beneficial in securing domestic violence convictions as well as protecting individual officers from malicious complaints and physical assault. There is thus a justice result in having these cameras. It became evident to me, during the time that I was lucky enough to spend with Sergeant Alex Baker and other North Wales police officers on the police parliamentary scheme earlier this year, that body-worn cameras were greatly welcomed for those very reasons. Powerful initiatives such as these should be extended as a matter of good practice. The Government cannot use the police and crime commissioners as an excuse for shrugging off such a fundamental responsibility.
The other point that I want to make is about cuts to front-line policing. It is not a fair response on the part of the Government to say that police spending is now protected. The police are suffering from the previous budget cuts, whose effects are now becoming statistically evident. We have seen a reduction in police officer numbers of 1,300 in Wales since 2010. Last year’s police funding formula would have resulted in a £32 million cut to Welsh forces, which would have caused Welsh police severe difficulties, as I am sure Members can imagine. Last year’s review of police funding sought to place greater emphasis on socioeconomic data and more general crime figures, but such a formula does not properly consider the workload differences of each force.
Figures provided by Dyfed-Powys police indicate that funding for Welsh forces in line with population would result in an additional £25 million for Wales. Of course, if policing were devolved to Wales—a position supported by all four police and crime commissioners in Wales—the overall Barnett formula for funding public services would indeed be based on population. As an aside, I would observe that Welsh forces are facing these significant cuts only because control over policing is retained in Westminster. This is particularly important when we consider that policing is devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the new formula will not apply.
When I have been out with the police, particularly the armed response and dog handler units, I learned about real concerns that the drive to work in alliance with neighbouring forces, arising from the long-term cuts agenda, would result in yet more police officers being put in dangerous situations without sufficient back-up. Of course, there are advantages to co-operation, especially for training, but there is also a tendency to locate officers in areas where the likelihood of certain types of crime is highest. That intrinsically disadvantages officers and the public in rural areas, where they can run the risk of finding themselves unreachable in emergency situations, which is beyond the pale.
In conclusion, I am in favour of the motion, but with one big caveat: that, in line with police and crime commissioners in Wales, policing is devolved and sufficiently funded to ensure that police officers are able to continue their excellent work in Wales.

Mike Wood: This issue has always been of personal importance to me. For nearly 30 years, my father was a West Midlands police officer, serving in the mounted branch and the firearms unit. In the 1980s, I remember kissing him goodbye as he went off to police football matches and riots, city centre riots and, yes, Orgreave. Having seen all that makes watching footage of assaults on police officers that bit more real. It is even more devastating when the person going home injured is one’s own father.
West Midlands police officers do a heroic job under consistent pressure to perform. Any assault on any police officer or PCSO is clearly totally deplorable, and those convicted of such assaults must expect a strong and lengthy prison sentence. Ever since the reforms of Robert Peel, we have policed by consent. It is right that the Minister reiterated what he said in the Adjournment debate called by the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) about the public having to
“understand that a police officer is to be respected and is there to serve the community.”—[Official Report, 11 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 283.]
Police officers are not there to stand by while they are abused and assaulted. Any use of force must be proportionate, but assessing that cannot be done with the cold rationalism of someone based in an office; it must be viewed from the standpoint of someone who genuinely feels that their personal safety and that of those around them is at risk.
During the summer recess, I did a night shift on patrol with West Midlands police around Dudley borough. The officers explained the difference that body cameras, 1,600 of which have been bought with co-funding from the Home Office, are already making as they get issued to all neighbourhood and response officers. Many Members will have seen the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology’s briefing from last year, which highlighted several benefits from the initial trial that have now been backed up by the experience in the west midlands. In fact, since the camera roll-out there has been a 10% increase in cases proceeding to charge, a 9% increase in early guilty pleas and, staggeringly, a 93% fall in complaints against police officers.

Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mike Wood: I am afraid that I cannot.
Late last month, I attended the Dudley council for voluntary service awards, at which Chief Superintendent Richard Fisher of the Dudley local policing unit talked of a future in which new technology could not only allow officers to spend more time on policing rather than filling in their pocket notebooks, but enable body cameras to record automatically if an officer draws out their taser or CS gas. Such technology would improve the safety of both officers and the public.
Our police officers put their safety at risk every time they go out. We owe it to them to do everything we can to keep them safe and to ensure that those who do cause them harm receive the punishment they deserve.

Justin Madders: Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for her outstanding work in pursuing this issue and to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) for her wonderful maiden speech today. She spoke with supreme confidence, sincerity and empathy, and I am sure she will be a great champion for her constituency, just as Jo was.
As we have heard today, the thin blue line keeps getting thinner, which threatens the safety of not only the public, but the men and women working all hours to protect us. Only today, the front page of my local paper, the Ellesmere Port Pioneer, pays tribute to officers who stopped a man setting himself on fire. The truth is that a cut in the number of officers of nearly 20,000 from 2010 to this year has led to the police sometimes being simply unable to attend certain incidents, and to response times at night getting longer and longer. Many constituents tell me that they no longer report incidents because they know the police do not have the resources to respond; this is creating a serious crisis of public confidence in the capacity of the police to respond to incidents.
Ahead of this debate, I asked a number of local officers for their views. One told me:
“Along with every officer that I know; I joined the Police to help people, even those people who hate the Police—we are there for everyone. I’m now surrounded by demoralised colleagues desperately trying to put a brave face on things, but completely overstretched and unable to carry out their jobs to the level that they would like to. This is not an accident; it is a political choice and one which I am concerned will lead to the injury and death of officers and members of the public.”
It should be noted that this officer sent their message during a week of night shifts working alone.
Another officer raised similar concerns about the numbers of officers, but also raised the issue of the impact of cuts to youth justice, diversionary projects, youth workers, social services and mental health services on the workload of the police. He told me that too often officers who should be working to protect the public are filling in the gaps left by the underfunding of other public services. The experience of police officers I have heard from is similar to that of those in the NHS and other areas of the public sector, where cuts to numbers are leaving services stretched to breaking point. This is perhaps most striking in the case of the NHS and social care, but it can be found across the public sector as a whole; we know that cuts to one budget often have an impact on many other services, and because it is often  left to the most expensive services to pick up the pieces, these cuts can often be a false economy. I hope the Government will reflect on that.
Finally, I want to discuss the estimated 23,000 assaults on our officers in England and Wales each year, each one of which is an attack on all of us. In my area of Cheshire, there were 442 recorded assaults on officers in 2015-16, which equates to one in every four and a half officers being assaulted during the year. If workers in any other profession were asked to face such a risk while going to work, there would be a national outrage, and we should look at our police officers no differently. We need to send the message out to the police and other public servants that we know they do a tough job, which is sometimes dangerous, but we value them and want them to be safe, and we want the full force of the law to be used against those who would use violence against them.

Richard Drax: May I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) for an excellent maiden speech? I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for pushing this important issue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for saving me from going through a whole lot of statistics in three minutes and 46 seconds, and I praise my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) and for Gower (Byron Davies) for both having served in the police service. I pay tribute to Dorset police, who do the most fantastic job, in a part of the country that many people think is affluent but which is not; we have our share of problems and the police do a wonderful job down there.
I wish to talk briefly about police safety and then move on to police numbers. Before I say anything more, may I pay tribute to our Front-Bench team, who are doing an excellent job, given the financial problems that, as we all know, we face? My comments are therefore in no way aimed at the job they are doing; I make them because I simply must speak up on behalf of my constituents, as that is my job and my duty.
I spoke today to an officer of some 28 years’ service, and his view is that the charging standards have been watered down. His solution, which I am sure the Government would appreciate, is not more police officers, but simply upping the ante in the courts. All too often where police officers or other members of the public services—those in the fire and ambulance services, and prison officers—have been assaulted, they find that the police do a fantastic job getting their case to court, but the courts simply do not have the power to follow up and impose a suitable sentence. Perhaps when she sums up, the Minister could tell the House about using not a caution for assaulting a police officer, which is not acceptable under any circumstances, but the offence of aggravated assault, which of course carries a far more serious sentence, for any assault, including spitting. Unfortunately, if we do not do that, the yobbish element, or those who attack police officers and other members of our public service, will have no deterrent. They will not be discouraged from behaving in the way that all of us in this House find unacceptable.
On police numbers, there is no doubt that, in Dorset, we need more officers. What I hear from the police  officers on the ground, and from senior officers, is that the nature of crime has changed. There is less crime on the streets, and more crime on the internet. Sadly, we have to deal with more terrorism. More specialist officers are being trained and therefore taken off our streets to meet that threat, and quite rightly so. As a consequence, officers on the street in rural communities such as mine are few and far between. They have no axe to grind politically—they are simply trying to do their job professionally—but the police are finding that, on many occasions, they do not have the officers to do the job. One comment I hear is, “If you don’t see an officer, that’s good news.” I am afraid that I have to say to the House that I disagree, because if we do not see an officer, you can bet your life that the burglar, the thug or the yob will not see an officer either, and that opens up territory for them to exploit to the disadvantage of our constituents. What we need in addition to the specific resources and specialist officers are officers on the beat. That demand and need has not gone. In fact, if anything, as the world changes—often to the detriment of our constituents—we need them more.

Graham Evans: When I was a special constable traipsing the streets of Cheshire, the desk sergeant always said to me that wlking the streets was reassuring to the public. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Richard Drax: I do. As a former soldier who, along with other Members in this House, served in Northern Ireland, I can say that all the information and intelligence that we got from the streets came from guardsmen, soldiers and riflemen or whoever was on the ground. No amount of cameras or specialist equipment could feed back what we needed to know—who was in the pub, what they were dressed in and why they were there. Personal checks—or p-checks as we called them—were about going up to someone and asking them what they were doing on the streets at the time. That all provided valuable information and acted as a deterrent to stop terrorists doing things against us and the civilian population. Similarly, more officers on the beat would do this and safeguard our constituents.
I end by paying tribute to the Dorset police force, which does a fantastic job, to all police forces in this country, and to all those who serve us in uniform. They should be protected, and I hope that we hear more from the Minister when she sums up.

Lyn Brown: I join the whole House today in wishing the officer who was stabbed in Lancashire a very speedy recovery. I also add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) on her moving and poignant maiden speech. She has done the memory of Jo, her constituents and this House proud by her contribution today. She also made me cry.
In this place, we make the laws, but we depend on police officers to go out into our communities and enforce them. This relationship places a special duty on us all in this place, and indeed in the Government, to ensure that police officers can do their job safely and free from fear of attack. As demonstrated by the horrific stories that we have heard today from my hon. Friends  the Members for Halifax (Holly Lynch), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), and for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), all too often we are failing in that special duty.
I was particularly affected by the story told by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) of the clumsy daddy. Nobody should have to experience that level of violence in their job and then have to lie to their children in that way.
A couple of weeks back, as I do every possible year, I attended a memorial service for PC Nina MacKay, who was attacked and stabbed 19 years ago when she went to arrest a wanted man in his home in my constituency. Her wounds were fatal. She was just 25 years old—a young woman with her entire life ahead of her, murdered as she went about her job.
Although police officer deaths are mercifully rare, almost all officers are violently confronted at some point in their careers. I have been looking at the case logs of attacks on police officers in the London borough of Westminster, to see the situation faced by the police working in the borough in which we sit. There have been 80 attacks on police officers in Westminster since May. Of these, 22 were classified as actual bodily harm and five as grievous bodily harm. The vast majority of the attacks were on the streets of Westminster, a few were in residential premises and 14 took place while the perpetrator was in police custody. I know that there were 80 attacks in Westminster since May because the Metropolitan Police Service has kept what are called the Operation Hampshire databases for each borough since April. Every time a police officer is attacked in London, there is now a strict protocol.
The incident is recorded as a crime and registered in the human resources log. A welfare officer—that is important—an investigation officer and someone from the senior leadership is immediately notified of the attack. The attacked officer is kept up to date with the progress of investigations. Most importantly, they are provided with welfare support, someone to ask how they are and provide support if it is wanted or needed. The process is designed to ensure that officers know that an assault on them is taken as seriously as an assault on any member of the public. Experiencing violence should not be accepted or expected as part of their jobs. They should not be considered second-class victims.
I was told by one officer about an attack that he endured when he was a young man and new to the police. It was long before these new protocols were even thought of. He was surrounded by a group of men. They punched him, kicked him and spat at him. He was shaken up. I can imagine that it frightened him, and it certainly dented his confidence. When he got back to the station the very next day, his colleagues congratulated him on a job well done and on the fact that he was in for the night shift, but one boss had the emotional intelligence to come to him, ask why he was there and encourage him to go home and spend the night with his family. He told me, “It was the smallest thing, but it was the most important thing.” I hope that officers in London are receiving that small but important thing now that Operation Hampshire is in place. If an officer in London is attacked, the protocol ensures that there is welfare support. They will not have to rely on the judgment and kindness of one decent boss.
Welfare care is important, but so is recording. We are told that there were an estimated 23,000 assaults on police officers in England and Wales last year. As we have heard, this is a number that we can have absolutely no confidence in. I have been told that it is not much better than a back-of-an-envelope job. The Home Office says that it has
“worked with police forces to try and improve the data further”,
as the Minister reiterated today. However, I heard him say only that he wants to add an additional category of assault with an injury to the recorded crime data. I would like him to go further—he is not a bad man. I want him to ask all police services to adopt the comprehensive and systematic approach taken by the Metropolitan and Hampshire police services. The Hampshire approach includes recording every incident in human resource logs, and integrating data collection with welfare provision. As my story of that young police officer shows, good systems are not just about collecting data, but about offering support.
Proper recording of assaults may give us a better idea of the scale of the problem we are facing, but it will not reduce the number of attacks. For that, Government action is necessary, so I come to sentencing. The Police Federation has raised concerns that a man who punched a police officer in the face and kicked them to the floor received just a 12-month community order. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax highlighted a case where a man assaulted four police officers, gouged their eyes and inflicted serious injury. He received only a two-month suspended sentence. Will the Minister commit to reiterating to the Sentencing Council, which I obviously respect the independence of, the seriousness with which we in this place treat attacks on police officers?
It would be wrong of me to speak on this matter without acknowledging the substantial cuts the police have had to absorb since the Conservatives came to power. There are 20,000 fewer police officers in the United Kingdom than in 2010—a reduction of 11.7%. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) told us how this is really stretching services in Greater Manchester, as it is elsewhere. That thin blue line has been getting thinner and thinner.
The cuts are leading to under-reporting by the public as their confidence is dented, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). There are concerns that the cuts are also leading to an increase in single crewing, which may well make police officers—particularly at night and when responding to emergency situations—even more vulnerable. But there are no reliable statistics on the amount of single crewing each police force is undertaking. We do not know definitively whether it is becoming more common and in which situations it is used. We do not know whether it has made officers more vulnerable to attack. PCCs and the Home Office need know the answers to these questions if they are to make informed strategic decisions and, most importantly, keep our officers safe from unnecessary danger.
Today, we have had calls for the Government to improve the recording and reporting of these attacks. The Minster has been asked to work with the Sentencing Council to ensure that appropriate punishments are meted out. He has also been asked to look at the way  police cuts are stretching our services. I hope that he will take these requests seriously and act on them urgently. Our police officers deserve to know that their welfare is paramount.

Sarah Newton: This has been a lively debate on an important subject of great concern to us all. I have listened with great care to the thoughtful speeches made by Members on both sides of the House. Sadly, there is so little time for me to speak that I will not be able to address all the questions, but I will write to Members with answers.
I am sure that you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there has been one absolutely stand-out speech this afternoon, and that was the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin). We will never forget the contribution that Jo made; she was, indeed, a small woman with a big kick. I am sure that the people of Batley and Spen will be extremely well represented by the hon. Lady, as we have seen from her speech today. I join her in paying great respect to West Yorkshire police for how they have dealt with an incredibly difficult time for her community and the broader community of West Yorkshire.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for persuading her colleagues to secure this important debate and for enabling us all to highlight this important issue. Like the hon. Lady and many Members we have heard this afternoon, I have spent time on the beat with officers in my constituency. My sister was a police officer, and my nephew—I am proud of him—is now serving our community as a special. I know first hand of the dedication of police officers, keeping us safe, day in, day out, all around our country.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) for his long and distinguished service as a special, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Byron Davies) for his more than 30 years of service as a police officer. I congratulate him on his recent election to the Home Affairs Committee, where I am sure that he will do an excellent job.
This afternoon, there have been calls for more and stronger sentencing. We agree that sentences must be tough. Although sentences are a matter for the courts, I want to assure all Members that sentencing guidelines already provide for assault on a police officer to be treated more severely. Assaults on police officers resulting in injuries will often result in a charge of actual bodily harm or an even more serious offence. In these cases, the fact that the victim is a police officer delivering this vital service is taken into account.
An assault can be treated more severely if the court so chooses, and there are offences relating specifically to police officers even where there is no physical harm. Right at the other end of the spectrum, in the most serious cases where an individual is convicted of the murder of a police officer in the course of his duty, a whole-life order will now be the sentencing starting point, thanks to the provisions introduced by the Government in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
As the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service stated, the Government will continue to provide the Sentencing Council with data and evidence on assaults  on police officers as it reviews its guidelines. We must make sure that any assault on a police officer is treated with the gravity it deserves. As he said, we will continue to work with ministerial colleagues across the Government, such as the Solicitor General, to ensure that individuals are appropriately prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Philip Davies: It has been agreed right across the House that sentencing for assaults on police officers is not sufficient. Would it not be a good idea for the Minister to send a transcript of this debate to Lord Justice Treacy, the chairman of the Sentencing Council, to ask him, on the back of this debate, to look once again at these guidelines to make sure that they are more appropriate?

Sarah Newton: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will make sure that members of the Sentencing Council read the record of this debate and fully understand the strong feelings in this House about having really tough sentences for these absolutely appalling and totally unacceptable offences.
I will touch briefly on the issue of equipment to support police officers because that was raised by a number of Members. I want to underline the fact that the Home Office supports chief constables in their operational decisions. This includes the funding of research on and guidance about equipment that might be helpful, including body cameras and spit hoods. I am sure we all agree, however, that the police must maintain their operational independence. It is not for the Home Office to run the police from Marsham Street. Chief constables and police and crime commissioners are accountable to the local communities they serve.

Andy Burnham: Will the Minister give way?

Sarah Newton: I am afraid that I cannot because of the time.
I want to assure the whole House of the absolute seriousness with which the Government regard assaults on police officers, as demonstrated by the better data that are going to be made available, including the new reporting announced today, through the leadership of the College of Policing. I know that chief constables will continue to do whatever they can to keep their people safe. We will enable them to work confidently to tackle the challenges of modern crime, and we will absolutely continue to support them in doing so.
It is really important to go back to what my right hon. Friend the Minister said right at the beginning of the debate: assaulting a police officer is completely unacceptable. It is indeed an assault on us all and all our society. Police officers should be able to carry out their duties without fear of assault, and anyone found guilty of such an offence can expect to face the full force of the law.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
The House divided:
Ayes 207, Noes 288.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
Question agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
Resolved,
That the House notes that any assault on a police officer is unacceptable and welcomes the work of the independent Sentencing Council in producing guidelines that specifically highlight the increased seriousness of an offence committed against anyone providing a public service; further welcomes the Government’s commitment to accurately record the number of assaults on police officers in England and Wales to better understand the scale of this issue; and further notes that the Government has protected police spending in real terms over the Spending Review period.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

PETITION - SYMMETRY PARK LOGISTICS

Peter Bone: I rise to present a petition organised by Mrs Gillyan Bailey and supported by two local councillors in Isham, Councillor Clive Hallam and Councillor Mrs Bone. Mrs Bailey has done an enormous amount of work. She has got virtually every resident in the village to sign the petition, which has hundreds of names on it. It concerns a completely unsatisfactory planning proposal, in the neighbouring constituency, which would create a logistics park twice the size of the village of Isham.
The petition reads:
The Humble Petition of residents of Isham, Northamptonshire and the surrounding area,
Sheweth,
That the Petitioners believe that the proposed planning application for the logistics development site known as Symmetry Park, outside, but adjacent to the village of Isham—planning application KET/2016/0606—is unacceptable, because it is twice the size of Isham, will very significantly increase the volume of traffic going through the village, increase noise, air and light pollution to unacceptable levels and is opposed by the vast majority of local residents.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Department for Communities and Local Government to encourage the Borough Council of Kettering to reject the current planning application.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
[P001972]

PETITION - TENANCY OF ST MICHAEL’S GATE, PARNWELL

Stewart Jackson: I present a petition on behalf of residents of the Peterborough constituency, who are very concerned regarding the eviction of residents of St Michael’s Gate in Parnwell, Peterborough, by their landlords. This issue has received a lot of public attention. A similar petition on the Change.org website has gained more than 1,400 supporters, and a second further petition to Peterborough City Council has hundreds of signatures. I can make a copy of it available to Ministers. I thank all those who have signed this petition and similar ones.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Peterborough,
Declares that residents of St Michael’s Gate are being threatened by eviction from their landlords Stef and Philips acting on behalf of Paul Simon Magic Homes; further that the private landlord who has recently acquired St Michael’s Gate has entered into agreement with Peterborough City Council to house homeless people at the properties; further that as a result of this agreement, all current longstanding tenants will be evicted, and some former tenants, including families, have had to declare themselves homeless; and further that Peterborough City Council should be doing more to support residents against their eviction by the private landlords.
The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to put pressure on Peterborough City Council to ensure that residents of St Michael’s Gate in Parnwell, Peterborough, are protected from eviction by their landlords.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001971]

EU Customs Union

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrew Griffiths.)

Helen Goodman: I am pleased to have the opportunity to have a short debate on the UK’s membership of the customs union.
My constituents voted to leave the European Union, largely because of what they see as uncontrolled immigration, but also because of the slightly bossy tendency of some of the EU institutions, which I think can be taken as a rejection of the European Court of Justice. However, they did not foresee all the consequences of the vote, partly because a number of false promises were made—most notably that there would be £350 million extra every week for the NHS, and also that no jobs would be at risk.
In the circumstances, it is reasonable of the Prime Minister to work on the assumption that part of her mandate is to end the free movement of citizens from the EU to the UK. That, in itself, does not amount to a negotiating strategy. The problem is that we are hearing wildly different things from different members of the Government. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has just reassured Nissan and it is going ahead with significant inward investment. I welcome that. Meanwhile, the Foreign Secretary still seems to believe that it will be easy and straightforward to do free trade deals “very rapidly indeed”.
The Government continue to say that they will not provide a running commentary on the negotiations. I know they claim that that is because they want to maintain confidentiality, but it appears from the outside as if it is because they are finding it difficult to agree among themselves on what should be done.
What I find alarming is the Government’s refusal to answer parliamentary questions. I asked the Minister a written parliamentary question about the Government’s policy on the customs union. He gave a rather opaque answer. I can live with that, but I have also put down a large number of written questions that ask factual things, such as how much we export, what the value of it is and what would be covered by the rules of origin were we to leave the customs union. On those questions, I also received the answer, “We will not give a running commentary.” That is why I felt it necessary to have a debate and explore these issues in more detail. I am alarmed by this situation, because the risk is that decisions will be taken on the basis of rhetoric not facts and on the basis of ideology not analysis.
An intelligent negotiating strategy needs to meet the public’s expectations, to be based on a hard-headed assessment of the national interest and to be deliverable. With that in mind, the Treasury Committee visited Berlin and Rome in September to find out what some of our counterparts might think. I am sorry to say that Brexit is not at the top of the in-tray for the other EU member states. They all see it in the context of their domestic political worries. Angela Merkel is looking over her shoulder at Alternative für Deutschland; Hollande is worried about Le Pen; Matteo Renzi is worried about Movimento 5 Stelle. Probably only the Irish take Brexit as seriously as we do. Over and over  again we heard the same word: precedent. There should be no reward for exiting the EU, and no precedents must be set.
I conclude from that that if controlling immigration is going to be part of the British position and we are to move to a more skills-based approach for managing migration, our EU partners are going to say that we cannot remain members of the single market. However, there has not been so much attention paid to our membership of the customs union, which I am beginning to think may be more important, especially if we want manufacturing industry to thrive in this country.
It is worth recalling the history. The customs unions was established in 1968. It is what we joined in 1973, and what the public affirmed with the referendum in 1975. It is what most people call the Common Market. Unlike high levels of immigration or the ECJ, it is rather popular with the British public.
The shadow Chancellor has rather pejoratively described the Government’s approach as a “bankers’ Brexit”. I know why he has done that. We must base what we are doing on some facts. I remind the House that we export more goods—some £285 billion-worth—than we do services, the figure for which is £226 billion. That is a ratio of 56:44. This is important. At the moment, we have a common external tariff, goods move freely within the EU and the Commission has competence for external trade negotiations. The customs union is not the same thing as the single market. Norway is in the single market but outside the customs union, whereas Turkey is in the customs union and outside the single market.
It is also worth recalling that the export of goods into the European Union comprises 48% of our exports. The EU is our biggest partner. Exports to Europe bring 3.3 million jobs. The next most significant partner is America, with 17% of our exports, and way down the numbers is China, our third biggest trading partner, with just 4%, or one 10th of the significance of our European exports. So what would happen if we were to leave the customs union?

Richard Fuller: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for calling this debate. She is precisely correct that this is what most of the debate in the House will be about. She said a little earlier that we joined the customs union when, effectively, we joined the European Union, as was reaffirmed in the referendum of 1975. Is that correct? If so, that sets the basis for what the Government have to argue, namely that in the referendum that we held this year we voted to leave the European Union and the directive is therefore to leave the customs union; we have to argue back from there. Will she clarify that point?

Helen Goodman: We joined the Common Market, which is the customs union, in 1973. Now we have voted to leave the European Union. People want to leave the EU, because of their concern about migration and perhaps about the ECJ. In my opinion, the move is not driven by concerns about the customs union, which in fact is very popular. That is what I am arguing.

Richard Fuller: We come from different points of view, I suspect, about the referendum—I supported our leaving the European Union—but there are very positive reasons for both sides regarding the customs union. We  have to understand where we are coming from after the referendum result. The presumption from that result is that we will leave the customs union. It is therefore beholden on people who may want us to stay in the customs union to argue what strong reasons there are for staying in—and there are strong reasons.

Helen Goodman: Let me come on to give some of those strong reasons. If we were to leave, we would face tariffs ranging generally between 5% and 10% on our exports. Even more significantly, our exporters would have to comply with the rules of origin. I think this is the biggest problem. I have the last television manufacturer in Britain, Cello Electronics, in my constituency. It imports a lot of components from China, puts the televisions together and sells them into the European market. The OECD estimates that the cost of filling in all the forms and complying with the rules of origin would add 24% to the export costs of selling into the European market. That would wipe out firms such as Cello, which, as I say, is in my constituency.
In Norway, which is outside the customs union, we know that some exporters find the bureaucracy of the rules of origin so burdensome that they prefer to pay the tariffs. This is really what the Nissan problem was. Belonging to the customs union was the first thing the Japanese Government listed in their hopes for what our deal would be, but the Government cannot take a factory-by-factory approach. Let us look at some of the big industries that would be affected: the automotive industry employs 450,000 people; aerospace 110,000 people; pharmaceuticals, such as Glaxo in my constituency, 93,000 people. All those industries have the same complex integrated international supply chains and would be badly hit were we to leave the customs union.

Jonathan Edwards: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate and making some very strong and powerful points. Does she agree with me that if we are outside the single market there will be a load of non-tariff barriers that would definitely hit those sectors, and so membership of the single market is just as important as the customs union?

Helen Goodman: We need to explore that and think about it in a little more detail.
A leaked document from the Treasury found that were we to leave the customs union, our GDP would fall by some 4.5%. Of course, I am not asking the Minister to comment on a leaked document, but it would be very nice if he could say how many jobs a fall of 4.5% of our GDP would translate into us losing. I think it would be hundreds of thousands.
It is true that staying in the customs union limits our capacity to do new trade deals on the goods it covers with third countries such as India and Australia. Some of the hard Brexiteers, such as the Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), seem to think that this is a good thing. He made a speech in Manchester in which he hailed the “post-geography trading world”. Well I have heard of the end of history, but I have never before heard of the end of geography. I think he is being wildly over-optimistic. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out to the  Treasury Committee, world growth and growth in trade are both slowing. This is not a good background in which to initiate these deals. The Government’s export target of £1 billion is bumping along at half that level and there would be a time lag. We cannot start the negotiations at least until our relationship with Europe is clear. That is obviously going to take three or four years, so we need to have transitional arrangements.
Finally, there must be a big question mark over whether we can get deals with third countries that are so much better that they more than compensate for what we would lose if we left the customs union. The UK is one tenth of the EU market of 550 million people. The Americans have already told us we would be at the back of the queue. The Swiss have found, in its negotiations with the Chinese, that the Chinese get access to the Swiss market seven years before it gets access to the Chinese market. Ministers are at sixes and sevens on this, with the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy apparently on one side, and the Department for International Trade and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the other. Robert Peston has pointed out that the mere fact that the Department for International Trade exists makes it a fiduciary obligation for multinational manufacturers based in Britain to start thinking about moving investment and jobs to the rest of the European Union. I will not talk about the Irish dimension, because I have already taken interventions on it, but it does present a significant political problem.
What I am mainly saying to the Minister this evening is that millions of jobs depend on our staying in the customs union. I am sure that the Secretary of State for International Trade is delighted that his career is flourishing and that he is travelling around the world, meeting all sorts of interesting people and trying to do lots of deals, but those million manufacturing jobs matter more than his grandiloquent ideas. What we want from the Minister is some concrete evidence that decisions will be taken on a proper basis. My message is simple: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Robin Walker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) on securing this debate. My constituents, like hers, voted to leave the European Union, so I welcome her comments about listening to that vote. It is also important that we all work together to make this process a success, so I welcome her analysis.
Last week, she posed a question along similar lines to the Prime Minister about the EU customs union and Nissan. I am delighted that since that question was posed, Nissan has announced that it will produce the Qashqai and a new model at its plant in Sunderland. The hon. Lady welcomed that, and so will I. I want to join the chorus of approval that we heard in this place for that decision. It is a vote of confidence, which shows that Britain is open for business and that we remain an outward-looking, world-leading nation. The plant in Sunderland will be expanded through new investment to be a super-plant, manufacturing more than 600,000 cars a year. Some 80% of the plant’s output is exported to more than 130 international markets. The decision is  a massive win for the 7,000 direct employees and 35,000 total British employees in the plant and the supply chain.
Turning to the core subject of this debate, the issue of the customs union is an important one. As with all facets of our exit negotiations, we recognise the need for a careful—what the hon. Lady called a “hard-headed”—analysis for a smooth transition that will minimise disruption to our trading relationships and seize the opportunities presented. This is an area in which there is excellent cross-Government co-operation, and I am pleased to be joined on the Treasury Bench this evening by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison). That shows how the Department for Exiting the European Union and the Treasury are working hand in hand on these issues.
I would like to be clear from the outset that—as, I think, we are all aware—no final decision has been taken on our broader future economic relationship with the EU, which includes our approach to the customs union. As with our decision not to trigger article 50 immediately, it is right that we take the time, as the hon. Lady said, to analyse our options carefully and seek to secure the best deal for the whole of the UK.

Richard Fuller: Can the Minister help me with the question I posed to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman)? The ballot paper said that we are either leaving the European Union or remaining in it, and we voted to leave. We joined the customs union in 1973. Is not the presumption and the starting position for the Government the fact that we will leave the customs union, so arguments have to be made why we should not do that rather than accepting that that should be regarded as the opening position?

Robin Walker: I think it important to engage with arguments on both sides of this debate. The key thing is to secure the UK national interest, so before we take a decision, we will want to listen very carefully to the arguments for leaving the customs union and the arguments for staying in it.
I think we can all agree that the issue has numerous aspects. The hon. Lady speaks with considerable experience of complex economic issues, having been a Treasury fast-streamer serving on the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Committee, and a former Minister. She will appreciate that, as the Prime Minister said in her reply the other day, making a full assessment of the options of a customs union is more complex than it might seem when first described to the public.
First, it is important to understand exactly what a customs union is and is not. It is an arrangement that relates to trade in goods; it does not cover trade in services or free movement of capital or people. To facilitate trade, a customs union removes tariffs and customs controls on goods moving between its members. While services are not directly included— they are not subject to either tariffs or customs controls—they have become increasingly embedded in goods production, so a customs union could indirectly affect trade in services industries. For example, in parallel to exporting an aircraft engine, an engineering firm might  also provide maintenance services; or in parallel to exporting cars, an automotive firm might provide financial services.
To function properly, a customs union must have a common external tariff, applied equally by all members of the union. That supports the free circulation of goods within the customs union, preventing trade diversion by ensuring that no one trading with the members of the union can be given preferential access to any individual members relative to the others. In the case of the European Union, in practice, we have chosen to make a reality of the common external tariff through the common commercial policy under which the European Commission negotiates on trade on the United Kingdom’s behalf, and in that way sets the common external tariff. In the case of members of the EU and the EU’s customs union, 80% of the tariffs that are collected by member states on imports from non-EU countries are paid into the EU budget, with member states retaining just the remaining 20% to cover collection costs. The UK collected £3.1 billion in tariffs on non-EU imports in the financial year 2015-16.
However, a customs union is only one of the many ways in which countries have sought to minimise the impact of customs procedures and support the free flow of goods. There are numerous examples around the world in which co-operation between customs authorities has helped to reduce the costs of customs processes at the border, short of a customs union. Even in the case of the European Union, the customs union is only part of an approach that also focuses on strengthening systems and processes on the ground. For example, the vast majority of customs declarations in the UK are submitted electronically and cleared rapidly, with only a small proportion experiencing delays—for example, when risk assessment indicates that compliance or enforcement checks are required at the border.
Norway has been involved in customs co-operation with Sweden and Finland, both of which are EU member states and are therefore in the EU customs union, as they have been since the 1960s. Norway has an agreement with the EU to mutually recognise each other’s schemes to impose less onerous checks on exporting firms with secure supply chains. It sits, as an observer, on some of the EU’s committees that discuss customs issues. Notwithstanding the issues raised by the hon. Lady, and although our Prime Minister has made clear that we are seeking not an off-the-shelf solution but a UK solution, it is important to note the collaborative agreements that exist in other countries. Switzerland and the EU have an agreement that recognises the equivalence of security checks at their external borders, and waives the need to make pre-departure and pre-arrival declarations. If we look more widely, we see that the United States and Canada also co-operate closely on customs issues, including schemes to expedite customs procedures for firms with secure supply chains and collaborative arrangements for operations at the border.

Helen Goodman: I am listening with interest to what the Minister is saying, but according to my constituents, who do a great deal of exporting, exporting to Switzerland is a nightmare in comparison with exporting to the EU, because of all the bureaucracy. Does the Minister not agree that the UK is in a different position from Norway?  Its major export is oil, and exporting oil is incredibly simple, but, as I said earlier, most of the goods that we export are manufactured goods, which have complex supply chains.

Robin Walker: That is a fair point. I shall say something about our engagement with some of those industries and the importance of supply chains later in my speech. It is worth noting, however, that many countries also have authorised economic operator schemes, which means that exporters with supply chains that are demonstrably secure are subject to fewer and less stringent checks. The EU has such arrangements with China, Japan, Norway, Switzerland and the United States, through which both sides recognise each other’s authorised economic operators for customs purposes.
Turkey, which the hon. Lady mentioned, is one country outside the EU that has a customs union arrangement with it. That arrangement covers most but not all goods. Raw agricultural produce, for instance, is excluded. The EU and Turkey have been preparing to update the terms of their current customs union arrangements, which were always meant to be transitional, given that Turkey has applied to be a full member of the EU. I could go on, as there is a multiplicity of examples, but the point is that any decision about membership or otherwise is complex, and must take account of the full spectrum of options.
During last week’s debate, the Prime Minister also said that the way in which one dealt with the customs union did not involve a binary choice. There are different aspects to a customs union, which is precisely why it is important to look at the detail, to carry out the hard analysis that the hon. Lady called for, and to get the answer right. We have made it clear that we will pursue what works for the unique circumstances of the United Kingdom, and we continue to analyse thoroughly what it might look like in order to ensure that we make the best choice for the UK. That includes the broad-based analysis of more than 50 sectors that my Department is undertaking in relation to the impact of the UK’s leaving the EU.
As with the broader UK-EU negotiations, we recognise the need for a smooth transition that minimises disruption to our trading relationships and seizes the opportunities that are presented. The issue of a customs union has also been part of the Government’s programme of stakeholder engagement. We have been discussing this matter with numerous companies, organisations and trade bodies, including the chemicals sector, car manufacturers, and the agriculture and food and drink sector. We want to ensure that their views are reflected in our approach. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the intention of the Government is to ensure a competitive market so that people are able to prosper here in the United Kingdom and add to our economic growth.
We are also aware of the specific circumstances faced by businesses in Northern Ireland, which I know the hon. Lady could have touched on if she had not taken the interventions. We had a common travel area between the UK and the Republic of Ireland many years before either country was a member of the European Union. Nobody wants to return to the borders of the past. I underline the will and commitment of ourselves, the Irish Government and the Northern  Ireland Executive to support the common travel area and to ensure that there are no hard borders. We must now work closely together to ensure that as the UK leaves the EU we find shared solutions to the challenges and maximise the opportunities for both the UK and the Republic of Ireland, which I expect will continue to be a close friend of the UK in years to come.

Helen Goodman: I am slightly nervous that the Minister might sit down before I ask him another question. He said his Department is looking at 50 sectors. My basic request tonight is that we should have more information and facts from the Department, so will he make a start by telling us which 50 sectors and how large they are, how much they export and how many people are employed in them?

Robin Walker: In the six minutes I have left, it would be a challenge to run through each of those 50 sectors, but we will certainly disclose that information in due course. It is important to emphasise this is a whole-Government effort. Our Department is engaging with those sectors and conducting the analysis and drawing it all together, but we are also working closely with colleagues at the Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and all the other relevant Departments to each sector of the economy, because it is important we get this right and there is a role for every part of Government in informing that process.

Jonathan Edwards: I am slightly confused about one point. I welcome the announcement about the common travel area between the Republic of Ireland and the UK, but will that not mean there is an open border between the EU and the British state?

Robin Walker: I think both the Republic of Ireland in its communications with the EU and we in ours are very clear about the value we place on that common travel area, which existed long before the membership of the two countries to the EU. We have been clear in saying this is not necessarily a completely easy issue; it is an issue that will require some work, but we are determined to do that work and make sure we can make this work. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
We must also consider carefully the position of the Crown dependencies and the UK’s overseas territories. Just today, I have met in a joint ministerial council with the overseas territories and the chief Ministers of the Crown dependencies to hear their views. There are some interesting examples. Gibraltar, for instance, has benefited from the UK’s membership of the EU but has not been part of the customs union to date.
I welcome this debate as part of the scrutiny of the Government’s position by this House. That is an important process and the information the hon. Lady and others have brought forward can certainly be taken into account as part of our analysis. I also look forward to Monday’s debate on exiting the EU and workers’ rights. That is an important aspect of our policy, and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has been very clear about our determination to protect workers’ rights.  That debate will be another opportunity for the House to discuss the important issues in relation to our exit from the European Union.
In summary, the Government fully recognise the importance of the question of a customs union with the EU in the context of our future relationship. It is a  complex, multi-faceted issue, and we are analysing carefully all the options available to us with the aim of securing the best outcome for the UK as a whole.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.